|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
If I had to bet I would say, Hillary-Christie would be the most likely choice at this point. I think Hillary is the only real first tier possible nominee, and everything is in place for a fairly smooth victory. Keeping quiet until 2015 would take the aura of "inevitability" away and Obama at least gave a little space to the whole political dynasty-monarchy thing people were so worried about in 2008. It is going to be almost 16 years since Bill left office, not long enough to forget the Clinton administration but long enough it isn't "too soon" for another Clinton. I think Biden will be talked out of a run, or if he does, it is going to be a short one. Biden did a good job this election, but I don't think he has the type of support for a real run. As others have said, there is a very strong chance for a strong run from a progressive/left liberal candidate. I think Hillary is going to realize this ahead of time and curry as much support she can get from that wing so she doesn't get hit with another Obama. To be honest, Hillary economically is left of Obama for the most part if she brought up a public opinion and a couple other goodies, I think she would do okay. Christie as we discussed is a good speaker, is more conservative than Romney.govenor.exe but not that conservative especially socially. The fat thing could go away if he wanted to, and he could make fitness a useful nonthreatening talking point. I think things are going to be still bitter from 2012 from the Tea-Party wing and he is going to have a contested primary and he is certainly going to be saddled with a evangelical/tea party VP. At this point, the Republicans have to run a centrist candidate and a VP candidate that is to the right of the party.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Yeah, I have no idea why anyone would be that thrilled about Cuomo considering his records, give me Hillary over that anyday. It is obviously going to be a DLC Democrat, but at least with Hillary there is a chance some acceptable stuff might get done and her relationship with the center-left isn't as poisonous as Obama or Cuomo. Anyway, Cuomo is a big name in New York State but outside of it I don't think he has much pull, especially not on the West coast.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 06:30
|
|
|
Joementum posted:They might not dislike her any more, but she and Bill will leave them out in the cold for the rest of their lives. Once they realize there's zero chance of any favors ever coming from the Clinton camp their way they might reconsider their support. I wonder if a meaningful split within the DLCers could be a beneficial thing that could be exploited, probably not. I do think a Hillary administration would probably be vaguely on the left on domestic policy than her husband or Obama. I wouldn't expect anything major from her, but I haven't heard her have the venom for left-liberals that Obama has.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Kay Hagan just outed a secret pledge amongst every female Democrat in the Senate to support Hillary Clinton in 2016, which puts the expected hold on Gillibrand's potential candidacy and throws some wrenches into people trying to draft Elizabeth Warren. Yeah, were really boned either way, Warren is lucky to be a senator and Hillary is going to be literally more DLC garbage.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:At this point it's the best we can hope for. Pretty much it is going to be Hillary just presenting current era Democratic domestic policy and a more right-wing foreign policy to liberals and telling them "want a Republican instead huh?" They will acquiesce and everyone gets to pretend for a few months that it is actually an meaningful election.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Someone who is aggressive on foreign policy, as opposed to a "dove". Specifically they desire military action more often as a solution than a "dove," a bird associated with peace. Of the two, Hillary is rightfully seen more of a hawk than Obama which opens up the question what American foreign policy is going to functionally be at this point. I see an aggressive foreign policy working even less successfully post-2016 than the Bush years. Seriously is backing Israel to the hilt the smart play at this point? How many countries are we going to play hardball with: Russia, China, most of South America, and big parts of the Middle East? You can't stop DC but there is pretty much no way it isn't going to be a train-wreck, the only question is will it be a Democratic or a Republican train-wreck.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
Gyges posted:At least President Palin would have resulted in some great reaction photos as foreign dignitaries try and decipher her word salad as translated into another language. Yeah there was that pretty bizarre response she gave recently where she was very definitely "off." She wasn't drunk but maybe high.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 03:17
|
|