|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 15:54 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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 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
|
|
|
Kalman posted:When was the last time a mayor successfully ran for a nomination? Never. There have been three Presidents who held a mayoral position (A. Johnson, Cleveland, and Coolidge), but they all had significant positions between that and the Presidency. I know of three mayoral bids for the Presidency, none of which were successful. The first two belong to John Lindsay, Republican Mayor of New York. In 1968 when there was a semi-serious early exploration but no real campaign partly because the nomination rules were different and partly because New York became something of a shitshow that year. He tried again in '72, that time as a Democrat, again leaving early. The third is of course Rudy Giuliani's absurd 2008 campaign. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 13:57
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:I know I would like it if, following Petey's transition thread, there was a general "Obama term 2" thread for people to talk about everything going on in his term since not all of it is worth its own thread, but it does interest most of us. Is that something of interest to people? No, please don't create a general US politics thread. Though I hate when people ask permission to create threads, so go ahead and create it if you like, just don't be shocked if it gets closed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2012 12:52
|
|
|
PPP Poll of New Hampshire, November 3-4, 2012 Asked of Republicans Jeb Bush: 11% Chris Christie: 21% Mike Huckabee: 8% Sarah Palin: 4% Rand Paul: 4% Condoleezza Rice: 13% Marco Rubio: 14% Paul Ryan: 10% Rick Santorum: 5% Someone else/Not Sure: 10% Asked of Democrats Joe Biden: 10% Hillary Clinton: 60% Andrew Cuomo: 7% Martin O'Malley: 0% Deval Patrick: 3% Brian Schweitzer: 0% Mark Warner: 0% Elizabeth Warren: 4% Someone else/Not sure: 15% Asked of Democrats, if Hillary isn't running Joe Biden: 26% Andrew Cuomo: 15% Martin O'Malley: 3% Deval Patrick: 9% Brian Schweitzer: 1% Mark Warner: 1% Elizabeth Warren: 11% Someone else/Not sure: 36% Asked of Democrats, if neither Hillary nor Joe is running Andrew Cuomo: 22% Martin O'Malley: 1% Deval Patrick: 18% Brian Schweitzer: 1% Mark Warner: 1% Elizabeth Warren: 15% Someone else/Not sure: 42%
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
PPP Poll of Florida, November 3-4, 2012 Asked of Republicans Jeb Bush: 28% Chris Christie: 9% Mike Huckabee: 11% Sarah Palin: 5% Rand Paul: 3% Condoleezza Rice: 8% Marco Rubio: 22% Paul Ryan: 8% Rick Santorum: 3% Someone else/Not Sure: 5% Asked of Democrats Joe Biden: 14% Hillary Clinton: 61% Andrew Cuomo: 8% Martin O'Malley: 3% Deval Patrick: 1% Brian Schweitzer: 0% Mark Warner: 2% Elizabeth Warren: 1% Someone else/Not sure: 9% Asked of Democrats, if Hillary isn't running Joe Biden: 38% Andrew Cuomo: 22% Martin O'Malley: 6% Deval Patrick: 3% Brian Schweitzer: 0% Mark Warner: 3% Elizabeth Warren: 6% Someone else/Not sure: 22% Asked of Democrats, if neither Hillary nor Joe is running Andrew Cuomo: 33% Martin O'Malley: 4% Deval Patrick: 7% Brian Schweitzer: 1% Mark Warner: 3% Elizabeth Warren: 10% Someone else/Not sure: 42%
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:That remains to be seen. I think she'll be almost Bernie Sanders-esque on economic policy, but most of her foreign policy votes will be boilerplate Democratic. It'll definitely be interesting to watch, but she was the only Senate candidate in a contested race this year to say that the correct policy on Afghanistan was to get out immediately. Foreign policy tends to be very difficult to judge from campaign literature though. Rand Paul, for instance, has turned out to be much less favorable to the military than I'd assumed from his campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
edit: nevermind, I misread.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:A lot of Hillary's old enemies aren't enemies anymore. She's turned into the beloved by all elder stateswoman of the party thanks to this term as SoS, which is one of the strangest turnarounds of any politician's image I can recall. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I wouldn't expect anything major from her, but I haven't heard her have the venom for left-liberals that Obama has. I think this is largely because nobody goes around pretending Hillary is some far-left paragon (well, nobody except Fox News) the way they do with Obama.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
Michele Bachmann's name has one "l" in it. Michelle Obama's name has two "l"s in it. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
There was a former Secretary of Defense on the ticket as Vice President recently and he was put there exactly because he added foreign policy experience that the top of the ticket lacked.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 14:35
|
|
|
Sylink posted:Why does anyone want Condi Rice to run around here? She is a terrible person right up there with Colin Powell with respect to their involvement and inability to stop the bullshit that was the Bush administration. The answer to every "Why does everyone here..." question is: go and find me two posts in this thread where someone unequivocally advocated for it. I'll wait. As for Condi as a candidate, I think the best we can hope for is that someone for the "traditional" wing of the Republican party wins the nomination, rather than one of the radicals or Tea Parties. I was actually really glad that Romney was the nominee this time instead of Santorum or Gingrich because it focused the race on some of the serious policy differences between the two parties rather than becoming a clown show. This meant that Obama advocated for some positions (for example upper class tax hikes) that he would not have had to do against Rick Santorum.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Comedy Time: who plays the Ron Paul role next (assuming those kids keep organizing)? It very nakedly became a money making sideshow this year and one Ron wants to keep in the family. I think Rand will put an obviously non-serious effort into 2016 just to keep the fundraising train rolling, get himself on TV more, and maybe wiggle his way onto some VP lists. It will be interesting to see if the  ution comes along as many of them hate him.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2012 12:14
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Isn't Rand gaining steam in the Republican party though? The party leadership doesn't trust him, and for good reason. He's been a bit of a gadfly at times in the Senate. I expect he'll have a qualified challenger in his next Senate primary. quote:I could see the libertarian party moving forward with Gary Johnson or a new guy, and just making sure the nominee pays enough lip service to the great L. Ron Paul Hubbard. I don't think Johnson's going to go back to the well with the LP in 2016 and, even if he does, they might not take him. He managed 0.98% of the vote this time. Now granted, that's the LP's best showing ever, but even Nader managed 2.74% in 2000 and the goal is to hit 5% so that you qualify for matching funds. He didn't even come close.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2012 13:18
|
|
|
The Buffalo News has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President in 2016.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
"[Nelson Rockefeller's withdrawl] does give a certain atmosphere of no competition.... The only thing I know about the Presidency the next time is this - I can't run." ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower, January 14, 1960. "Q. Mr. Mohr: We understand that the power of decision is entirely yours, Mr. President. I just wondered if you could give us an example of a major idea of [Nixon's] that you had adopted in that role, as the decider and final– THE PRESIDENT. If you give me a week, I might think of one. I don’t remember." ~ August 24, 1960. They were such good buddies 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
GQ asked Marco Rubio some questions. Here are my favorites.quote:GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
It is worth pointing out that 68% of Iowa Republican caucus voters believe the Earth was created in six days.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2012 17:11
|
|
|
And actually, his real name is Joe Biden. "Beau" is a nickname given to distinguish him from his father. He'll probably run for Governor or Senator next time there's an opportunity. 2016 would be too soon for a national campaign, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him try later.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2012 18:24
|
|
|
Reverse Arab posted:Even Rick Santorum is for teaching Evolution. Even Santorum. God drat how is this an issue still? Not exactly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLo_jfru8jA
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
We have a black President. We very nearly had a Mormon President and a woman President. Those barriers are significantly higher than health concerns unless they truly are drastic. It'll be a media obsession if Chris Christie or Joe Biden run, but it won't come close to being a significant factor in voters' decision, though I think both will have trouble with just the physical exertion of the campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
If he was a citizen at the time of his birth (as a result of being born in the US or born to US citizen parents), then he is a natural born citizen. I think that Hawaiians during the period where it was a Territory were citizens (as Puerto Ricans are today), but I'm not certain of that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Reagan was old when he took office. This is a really good argument for not electing someone that old.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2012 01:30
|
|
|
Rubio has now walked back some of his statements from that GQ interview.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
As you can tell, I'm a big fan of this news. I checked the Ron Paul forums to see if they were on board and there's the usual hand wringing over a few votes they didn't like, but there's also...quote:It's amazing to me....  My preferences for primaries is to maximize their entertainment value and this falls squarely in that category. Even better, whether or not he goes through with this, will be the continued Libertarian / Tea Party scolding of the establishment.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Wouldn't he just be like another Paul Ryan though? They seem similar enough. No. Ron and Rand have set up a very special grifter operation where they prey on the hopes of the ution crowd through events, money bombs, and (yes) newsletters. That's what this is all about. Rand hops into the clown tent for a year to bilk that crowd out of their pill money, which requires putting on a show. Paul Ryan didn't speak at the Ron Paul circus in Tampa. Rand did. And that's all the difference in the world.Pillowpants posted:This family is huge and they could still run for something. Joe Kennedy III was just elected to Congress in Barney Frank's old district.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
The thinking is that second term Presidents are confronted with a dilemma where they don't have to worry about getting re-elected, but suddenly become a lot more interested in their legacy. This leads to them over-reaching which then becomes a scandal (like Iran Contra with Reagan) or the resistance to their over-reaching makes it clear that they're going to be a lame duck for the majority of their second term (like Social Security reform with W. Bush). For what it's worth, Obama buys into this theory. quote:“I don’t presume that because I won an election that everybody suddenly agrees with me on everything," said Obama. "I’m more than familiar with all the literature about presidential overreach in second terms. We are very cautious about that.” This is what we would expect from Obama: caution and a desire to find compromise. But hubris can always get the better of people, whether they decide to authorize U-2 spy planes, or sleep around, or start drawing up an enemies list.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2012 21:38
|
|
|
Gov. Terry Branstad wants to get rid of the Ames Straw Poll, but Iowa GOP chairman A.J. Spiker wants to keep it and says that it's not Branstad's decision to make anyway. The Straw Poll is, of course, ridiculous and just a party fundraiser with no predictive power. Another interesting twist here is that Ron Paul very nearly won the 2012 Ames Straw Poll. Bachmann only beat him by ~100 votes. Spiker worked for the Paul campaign and was one of the chairpersons who allowed their delegation to read the Ron Paul delegate votes at the convention, so he'll be a very interesting person to keep an eye on in 2015 if Rand enters the race.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
Rick Santorum is thinking about running again. Get ready for him to be an early front runner on name recognition alone.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 04:02
|
|
|
It would appear someone who contributed to that Wikipedia page doesn't much like Mike Beebe.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
Huh, we managed to avoid pressure cooker chat this time. Good job! Please no more food budget chat in the Presidential Primaries thread. Meanwhile, Marco "not a scientist, man" Rubio has clarified his thoughts on the age of the Earth. quote:“There is no scientific debate on the age of the earth. I mean, it’s established pretty definitively, it’s at least 4.5 billion years old,” Rubio told Mike Allen of Politico. ”I was referring to a theological debate, which is a pretty healthy debate. Or, in pictorial form: 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
Christie has pretty bad favorability right now with Republicans. Not that he can't recover, but when people like Rick Santorum more than you, you've got some work ahead of you.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 15:54 |
|
|
There's also the physical toll that the campaign takes on you. Romney, who has a resting heart rate of like -50, had to take days off for exhaustion. It will not be easy for a person who isn't in shape.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 23:18
|
|