|
As a preliminary warning, I will come down very harshly on low content and off-topic posts in this thread. If there is nothing to post in here relevant to the 2016 primary then do not post. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS What is the difference between a caucus and a primary? Simply, a primary is run by the state and a caucus is run by the party. Primaries tend to use the Australian ballot, which lists several candidate choices allowing you to mark one in a private election. Caucuses are meetings staged by the political party. They are typically run using Robert's Rules of Order. Often, supporters of each candidate are allowed to make a short speech in support of their choice. After the speeches, votes are cast by the caucus attendees for the candidates. After those votes are tabulated, delegates are selected for the next round of causes (typically precinct, county, district and state) based on the rules agreed to by the caucus attendees. What are closed and open primaries? A closed primary is one in which only registered members of that party may vote, for example only Republicans being allowed to vote in a Republican primary. Open primaries allow each voter to decide which ballot they would like to vote on, so a registered Democrat could vote in the Republican primary in an open primary state. Some states are semi-open. For example, Arizona allows registered Republicans and Libertarians to vote in its Republican primary, but not registered Democrats. Each state is allowed to decide its own rules, though parties have successfully sued to force the state to adopt their rules. Are there differences between Republican and Democratic caucuses? Yes there are. Republican caucuses will change in 2016 to awarding delegates proportionally based on the straw poll vote cast during the precinct-level caucuses. This can be though of as the "Ron Paul rule", since its purpose is to prevent a repeat of what his supporters did in 2008 and 2012 where they lost the straw poll vote at the precinct caucuses in some states, but managed to capture large numbers of delegates from those states using wily tactics like "showing up at later meetings" that the opposition was unprepared to counter. Democratic caucuses are much more interesting because the party imposes a 15% "viability threshold". If you vote for a candidate at your caucus precinct and that candidate doesn't receive 15% of the vote, there is another round of voting and you are allowed to either leave or cast a new vote for one of the candidates that did meet the threshold. These votes are sometimes cast on a private ballot, or sometimes people stand in various corners of the room while a head count is conducted and they all yell at the other groups while this is happening to get more supporters. Aren't these caucuses undemocratic? Why shouldn't we just have a simple state-wide vote run by the state and award delegates proportionally? Why should I have to pay for your stupid political party's dumb beauty contest? CURRENT PRIMARY CALENDAR 2016 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses, and Conventions Chronologically DEMOCRATIC POSSIBILITIES Handicapped list. Listed in alphabetical order with their most significant political achievement.
REPUBLICAN POSSIBILITIES Handicapped list. Listed in alphabetical order with their most significant political achievement.
PEOPLE WHO ARE DEFINITELY NOT RUNNING OR ARE THEY!?!?!
PRIMARY ELECTION RESOURCES Frontloading HQ The Green Papers Joementum fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Oct 15, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 11:27 |
|
|
I think we're most likely to see Clinton, Warren, and Cuomo run for the Democrats in 2016. Cory Booker might try to make a run, but as the mayor of Newark he may feel he lacks the visibility. Like Obama in 2004, Booker made a notable speech at the DNC, which could be enough to convince him to run. I don't think Joe Biden wants to try to become president at age 73. The Republican choice depends on which direction the party moves in four years. If they decide to shift towards the centre and pick up Hispanic voters, we'll see Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, and Jeb Bush. If they decide to try for a True Conservative, expect Rick Santorum and maybe Sarah Palin. I expect Santorum will run no matter what, after his 2012 performance exceeded all expectations. Cain won't run again, considering the scandals that pushed him out of the race in 2012.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:02
|
|
|
Everything I've read while following the 2012 election suggests that Biden really wants to run for president in 2016. Politico had a very insidery ebook a month or two back "Obama's Last Stand" where people in the White House noticed that Biden was a bit too willing to do fundraisers with rich Democratic donors and preferred to be deployed to early primary states such as Iowa and New Hampshire over the others. He also doesn't deny any intention of running like Hillary has done repeatedly in her interviews. If Hillary runs I think she would sweep all 50 states Al Gore 2000 style, with the more liberal challenger playing the role of Bill Bradley. If not things get more interesting, though it'd be pretty easy to guess that Cuomo would be the establishment favorite who they'd throw all their money towards if he got into the race. Would be interesting to see a Biden (White House favorite) vs. Cuomo (rich donors) battle. JesusSinfulHands fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
I want to pre-emtively declare than anyone who mentions Warren in this thread has no idea who they are talking about. Seriously pay close attention to her for more than one hour and you will see that she has neither the charisma, the art nor possibly the stomach to run for POTUS. She is not a natural politician. Not to mention: her age, and her not even completing her first senate term. Warren will absolutely not be a 2016 contender.
Brigadier Sockface fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
I believe Ohio's date is now March 8 (First Tuesday after First Monday), as HB 194, the bill that would have changed it as mentioned on Frontloading HQ was repealed back in May, such that the referendum never actually needed to go to a vote. Not sure why Frontloading doesn't reflect this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
Joe Biden has been joking the last few days about running in 2016. He will be 73, which I think would make him as old as Reagan in 1984. I would be shocked if Rahm Emmanuel runs in the primary but he could be a VP option. He had something like a 54% approval rating with Chicago voters BEFORE this fall's teacher strike that will have only dropped his numbers lower.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
Whoever of the Clinton/Biden duo runs next term will shut out everybody else. There might be one viable candidacy slot available besides that one, but not two. Most of this list will never run because of that, especially somebody like Warren that would have to start campaigning way too soon (and is probably not good enough a politician to beat a Clinton). Note that the ONLY reason Biden wouldn't run is if Clinton does, and he might anyway. The GOP will do their best to murder each other for months so it's way too early to tell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
Misandrist Duck posted:Joe Biden has been joking the last few days about running in 2016. He will be 73, which I think would make him as old as Reagan in 1984. Put that man in stasis or begin construction on a robot body to house his brain, because God drat it after his performance in that debate (and the speech the other night, and all the other great stuff he did) I'll volunteer for Biden 2016. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
Brigadier Sockface posted:I want to pre-emtively declare than anyone who mentions Warren in this thread has no idea who they are talking about. Seriously pay close attention to her for more than one hour and you will see that she has neither the charisma, the art nor possibly the stomach to run for POTUS. Not to mention: her age, and her not even completing her first senate term. Warren will absolutely not be a 2016 contender. This is absolutely true. While I adore Warren for her strong positions on income inequality and wall street reform, she is not nearly presidential enough to make it through a primary process. She gives off twice the Ivory Tower Intellectual vibe of Professor Obama without any of his charisma or ease. If she runs in 2016 it will be a mistake and it will be because people pushed her to do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
People are drastically overestimating Nikki Haley. She's been a disaster as a governor, her state's unemployment is still pretty high, and even a lot of Republicans have turned on her multiple times to override her vetos. She could get primaried by the GOP establishment in SC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
I think there is going to be a serious effort to get Brian Schweitzer to run. He's a moderate Democratic governor, very popular, and very likable. Comedy option is that Chris Christie has a conversion on the road to Asbury Park, drops 75 pounds and runs as a Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
Another great asset to consider about Clinton is that she quite possibly may have the power to bring West Virginia, Arkansas and Louisiana back under the fold. Although that may be a bit of a tall order.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
Hillary is 45. If she doesn't run Cuomo will. On the right I bet Jen Bush and Hunstman vie for the moderate soul of the party while Huckabee and Santorum go for the tea party pickings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
BootStrap posted:I think there is going to be a serious effort to get Brian Schweitzer to run. He's a moderate Democratic governor, very popular, and very likable. I wouldn't even say moderate, he's a bona fide progressive. He proposed single payer for his state, fought for maintaining campaign finance reform in his state, took on oil pipeline companies pretty hard over spills in the state, and has been outspoken against the PATRIOT act. Add in that he's coming from a red state, and it could be a good package. Problem is, he's from a tiny state population-wise. He's been doing the Dem circuit for a while now (he spoke at our convention in Virginia), so at least activists know who he is. Honestly, I don't know why these Warren supporters don't get behind him. He's got charisma in bunches. Also, his dog 
De Nomolos fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
If y'all are going to use Biden's age against him, it should be noted that Hillary will be 69 in 2016. From what I've heard of O'Malley, he'll at least form an exploratory committee. He's been sort of Clinton-esqe in his actions. He certainly has a good resume, too. Real Name Grover fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
BootStrap posted:Comedy option is that Chris Christie has a conversion on the road to Asbury Park, drops 75 pounds and runs as a Democrat. That's not going to happen, but if Christie loses weight he could make a good run for a more moderate Republican party in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
Sec. Clinton is the obvious early call. She seemed to be far away from the campaign most of this year, but President Clinton was all up in it and really did a great job to support President Obama. I know that he is a workhorse and loves the spotlight, but I wonder if President Obama made some sort of agreement to pass the keys for the organization and data to the Clintons for their support; President Clinton ran all over the drat country in the last 60 days.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
The GOP field looks awful and none of them could beat Romney (maybe Christie). I think Christie is happy being a governor and won't run. He is a homeboy. Biden will probably realize he is too old as will Hillary. Hillary will probably be burnt out, she never seems to have the same passion as Bill. Also is Chelsea on that list in a serious sense? Looking at her wikipedia page she is just doing whatever jobs she has gotten through her family contacts and probably just making some cash while working for her Dad's foundation as well. So really whoever Bill Clinton can possess seems about right. Hopefully Feingold, Schweitzer. I don't want to see another VP run and lose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
If Clinton and Biden both ran I'm guessing Obama would endorse Biden? I imagine that would be a tough call.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
I was rabidly anti-Clinton in '08, but I'd totally support her over any of those others listed under the Democratic side. A Clinton/O'Malley, Clinton/Booker, or Clinton/Patrick ticket would be totally awesome if you ask me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
TheBuilder posted:Sec. Clinton is the obvious early call. She seemed to be far away from the campaign most of this year... That's because she can't legally campaign on Obama's behalf.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
I honestly see Hillary running and winning the nomination in 2016, as long as she wants it. A couple questions: If Christie loses his 2013 Governor bid, what does that mean for his 2016 chances? If the tea party is refuted heavily in 2014, will there be room for a Santorum type of candidate? Will the Republicans even run with Jeb Bush? Will they panic and push for a hispanic candidate to pander to that base?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
If Hillary is up to it, I agree she would probably get it and they might be able to ride that on a wave of making history as the first female president in the same way they did in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
I'm done with politics.
Earth fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
The GOP one's weird. The past few presidential cycles, the runner up in the primaries wound up winning the next primary, but it's not really clear whose "turn" it'll be this time. Gingrich was the #2, but he has a lot of baggage. Rubio seems like the most obvious, but Tea Party associations are starting to become baggage in the general and I think the Tea Party buzz will have completely died in 4 years. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:I wouldn't even say moderate, he's a bona fide progressive. He proposed single payer for his state, fought for maintaining campaign finance reform in his state, took on oil pipeline companies pretty hard over spills in the state, and has been outspoken against the PATRIOT act. Add in that he's coming from a red state, and it could be a good package. I'd love a foreign policy debate where he just goes off and starts speaking Arabic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
Earth posted:So I guess my question is what is the likelihood that someone almost completely unknown will come out of the woodwork and just wow everyone? This is rather likely to happen, but it is rather unlikely that this person will win the nomination. To do the former, you simply need to have enough of a personality to stake a different position in the race so that the media will notice you during the primary. Think of Howard Dean or Mike Huckabee, both of whom were relative unknowns. But in order to win you need the institutional support of the party and the donors that come with it. This is why it was key for Obama to have ins with Ried, Daschle, and Emmanuel (and the rest of the Chicago set). He'd have never come close had they not supported him (each for their own reasons) very early on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:48
|
|
|
Adar posted:Whoever of the Clinton/Biden duo runs next term will shut out everybody else. There might be one viable candidacy slot available besides that one, but not two. Most of this list will never run because of that, especially somebody like Warren that would have to start campaigning way too soon (and is probably not good enough a politician to beat a Clinton). There are also significant members of that list who are members of Hillaryland - Gillibrand, Cuomo, and to a lesser extent Rahm - and simply won't run if Clinton runs because they're allies. The nomination is obviously Hillary's for the taking if she wants it, and I doubt we'll get much on that until mid-2014 at the earliest. I do think someone like Feingold, Warren, Shumlin, or Dean will try to challenge her from a populist liberal standpoint, but it will be more of a keep her honest challenge that the professional left fawns over than a real threat. I don't see Cory Booker as a viable 2016 candidate no matter what happens, and that's with the full expectation that he takes Lautenberg's Senate seat in 2014. I do think he will be the Democratic nominee some day, but not today. He just doesn't have the platform yet. Same for Julian Castro. These are absolutely top-tier names for the veepstakes, though. The Republican primary, well, that's going to be a bloodbath and a battle for the soul of the party. If you think 2012 was a clownshow, you ain't seen nothing yet. And unlike the Democratic primary, it won't be waiting for the other shoe to drop, so it starts today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
Joementum is some kind of non-giving up politics guy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
When did Russ Feingold get elected from Minnesota? e: Hey Joementum you mean Wisconsin not Minnesota in the OP. 
Rousimar Pauladeen fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
I think there is going to have to be a Santorum/Religious-Tea Party candidate, it is way too large and influential a part of the GOP not to have a spokesman. There might not be a serious moderate, Romney hanged around because he was the best that side of the party still had. I don't see anyone able to fill in his space, and Christie while political astute is no moderate. I think it is going to come down to a traditional conservative versus a Tea Party conservative that may or may not have evangelical ties and a libertarian on the side. I guess that would be Rand Paul, Ron would be 81 at that point. Honestly, the moderate Republicans are being pushed out as much Blue dogs losing their seats. Ultimately, I think the Blue Dogs will outlast the moderate Republicans though, some of the Democratic machines in the South are too powerful to die off and there will still be a handful of them. However, there really isn't a socially centrist bloc in the GOP and thats going to hurt them. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I think it is going to come down to a traditional conservative versus a Tea Party conservative that may or may not have evangelical ties and a libertarian on the side. I guess that would be Rand Paul, Ron would be 81 at that point. I think this role could be comfortably filled by Jim DeMint. He's self-term-limiting himself and is scheduled to retire from the Senate when his term ends in 2016. He's widely regarded as the leader of the Tea Party Caucus in both houses of Congress, House members regularly come to him asking how they should vote on particular issues and he was one of the people telling them to hold the line in the budget negotiations. He's got plenty of political connections and, despite being the nominal leader of the TPC (no matter what Michele claims) he doesn't come out making the types of ridiculous statements that its members are well known for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:There might not be a serious moderate, Romney hanged around because he was the best that side of the party still had. I don't see anyone able to fill in his space, and Christie while political astute is no moderate. By the standards of the 2010s Republican Party, Christie is absolutely a moderate. Be careful about confusing moderate for squishy. As has been noted before, the tell on Christie is if he suddenly goes on a crash diet and drops 50 or 100 pounds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:Hillary is 45. If she doesn't run Cuomo will. On the right I bet Jen Bush and Hunstman vie for the moderate soul of the party while Huckabee and Santorum go for the tea party pickings. I had to check and Jenna Bush would actually turn 35 on November 25th 2016 so she'd be constitutionally eligible by Inauguration Day. Seriously though, I kind of think 2016 might still be too early for another Bush.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
I hope Warren doesn't run. She's worked closely with her daughter in the past, so the best thing she could do (in my opinion) is start another MA senate dynasty. Do a good job for a handful of terms, and then pass it off to Warren-The-Younger. As a senator, she can really wield some significant influence for good. I would love to see Brian Schweitzer make a real run for it. He's got a lot of ground to cover first, but to be honest he is the democratic parties best chance for a Reagen '84 style sweep. Fox news will be losing their minds, but he hits all the right notes (and the wrong notes  ) on both sides of the aisle. I mean for god sakes, he owns a hunting dog! (R-check) And he's lived in the middle east and speaks arabic (R-wut?)! He's pushed for single payer! (D-check) Also, for a bill to exempt MT-made guns from federal restrictions (D-wut?)! Something for everyone! The guy uses a loving branding iron to veto bills! What isn't to love?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:09
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:I hope Warren doesn't run. She's worked closely with her daughter in the past, so the best thing she could do (in my opinion) is start another MA senate dynasty. Do a good job for a handful of terms, and then pass it off to Warren-The-Younger. As a senator, she can really wield some significant influence for good. Warren gets a free shot at 2016 if she so desires, she's not up for reelection until 2018. Massachusetts essentially elects senators for life anyways outside of super-weird situations (which was why defeating Brown was such a big priority), that seat is her's as long as she wants it no matter what else she chooses to do. And if Warren wants to be a presidential candidate, 2016 is probably going to be her only shot. I'm sure that discussion is being had already by Warren, her family, and her political team, because she'd need to get started real quick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
Misandrist Duck posted:Joe Biden has been joking the last few days about running in 2016. He will be 73, which I think would make him as old as Reagan in 1984. 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.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
What about Kirsten Gillibrand? She's been the NY Senator since Clinton became Secretary of State and she won 70% of the vote yesterday. Plus she's only 45 and seems like a good candidate for the more left wing parts of the Democratic Party. I think she'd probably not run due to there not being enough oxygen with 2 other NY politicians running (Clinton and Cuomo) but if one or both of them declines to run she might have a good shot. I'd be really curious who people were predicting the nominees would be in '08 and '12 immediately after the '04 and '08 elections. If I recall I think a lot of people were talking about Huckabee in '08 and I know people said Obama after '04 but I always thought it was wishful thinking. That turned out to be wrong, but my point is I think we may not even have the eventual nominee on our lists at this point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
Do ya'll really buy that Christie is "too fat?" We're a fatass nation and we love Kevin James. Everyone would make fun of him and it'd hurt him until the first debate when people see that he doesn't sound like Jabba The Hutt and doesn't sweat grease. As long as he appears mentally spry, it'll work out for him. Of course if he ends up sweating through his shirt at a debate it'll look extra bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 11:27 |
|
|
Joementum posted:I think this role could be comfortably filled by Jim DeMint. He's self-term-limiting himself and is scheduled to retire from the Senate when his term ends in 2016. He's widely regarded as the leader of the Tea Party Caucus in both houses of Congress, House members regularly come to him asking how they should vote on particular issues and he was one of the people telling them to hold the line in the budget negotiations. He's got plenty of political connections and, despite being the nominal leader of the TPC (no matter what Michele claims) he doesn't come out making the types of ridiculous statements that its members are well known for. He has a shot, but there is going to have to be challenger that is ridiculous, Santorum fortunes were based on that nutty appeal that went beyond just beyond his politics. The establishment would go with DeMint if it came down to him and a nut, but I think there is going to have to be one nut that goes far. Christie is going to be the closest to a moderate that has a real shot, he is socially centrist and fiscally conservative so that is true. I just wonder if he is going to be able to bend-backwards even further than Romney to get the significant triangulation he is going to need.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:18
|
|