2016 Presidential Primaries: Senator Agua Bottle vs Senator Aqua Buddha

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > 2016 Presidential Primaries: Senator Agua Bottle vs Senator Aqua Buddha

B B: Dec 1, 2005

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 9, 2024 07:58

B B: Dec 1, 2005

Oh god. Those Cuomo numbers. :cry:

# ¿ Nov 9, 2012 17:01

B B: Dec 1, 2005

SedanChair posted:

Oh, they existed all right. I saw one at the precinct caucus. She was an old white lady in a raincoat, and her white-bearded husband wore a pained expression as she went on about how Hillary earned this, and who was this Obama anyway, and he doesn't have any experience and we don't know who he is, and HILLARY EARNED THIS

I canvassed likely Democratic voters in 4 different states in 2008. I can confirm that they existed.

# ¿ Dec 28, 2012 17:31

B B: Dec 1, 2005

So, Republican columnists have already started writing articles begging Hillary Clinton not to run:

David Frum posted:

Editor's note: David Frum, a CNN contributor, is a contributing editor at Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He is the author of eight books, including a new novel, "Patriots," and a post-election e-book, "Why Romney Lost." Frum was a special assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2002.

Washington (CNN) -- Democrats seem poised to choose their next presidential nominee the way Republicans often choose theirs: according to the principle of "next in line."
Hillary Clinton came second in the nomination fight of 2008. If she were a Republican, that would make her a near-certainty to be nominated in 2016. Five of the past six Republican nominees had finished second in the previous round of primaries. (The sixth was George W. Bush, son of the most recent Republican president.)

Democrats, by contrast, prefer newcomers. Six of their eight nominees since 1972 had never sought national office before.

Obviously, past performance is no guarantee of future results. Democrats chose the next guy in line in 2000 -- Vice President Al Gore -- and they may well do so again. But speaking from across the aisle, it's just this one observer's opinion that Democrats would be poorly served by following the Republican example when President Obama's term ends.

Hillary Clinton is 14 years older than Barack Obama. A party has never nominated a leader that much older than his immediate predecessor. (The previous record-holder was James Buchanan, 13 years older than Franklin Pierce when the Democrats chose him in 1856. Runner-up: Dwight Eisenhower, 12 years older than his predecessor, Thomas Dewey.)

Parties have good reasons to avoid reaching back to politicians of prior generations. When they do, they bring forward not only the ideas of the past, but also the personalities and the quarrels of the past.
One particular quarrel that a Hillary Clinton nomination would bring forward is the quarrel over the ethical standards of the Clinton White House -- and, maybe even more, of the Clintons' post-White House careers. Relying on Hillary Clinton's annual financial disclosure reports, CNN reported last year that former President Bill Clinton had earned $89 million in speaking fees since leaving the White House in 2001. Many of these earnings came from foreign sources. In 2011 alone, the former president earned $6.1 million from 16 speeches in 11 foreign countries.

Is it an ethical problem for the husband of the person charged with the foreign affairs of the United States to earn so much foreign-sourced income? Let's rephrase that question: How much time do Democrats wish to spend arguing the ethics of Bill Clinton's foreign earnings over the 2016 political cycle?

Yet the biggest risk to Democrats from a Hillary Clinton nomination is not that it would be generationally backward-looking -- or that it would reopen embarrassing ethical disputes -- but that it would short-circuit the necessary work of party renewal.

After eight years in the White House, a party requires a self-appraisal and a debate over its way forward. Bill Clinton offered Democrats just such a debate in 1992 with his "New Democrat" ideas. Barack Obama offered another in 2008 with his careful but unmistakable criticism of Clinton-era domestic policies and Hillary Clinton's Iraq war vote. But if Hillary Clinton glides into the nomination in 2016 on the strength of money, name recognition, and a generalized feeling of "It's her turn," then Democrats will forgo this necessary renewal.

Here's what could happen instead in 2016:

One candidate could seek the Democratic nomination on a platform of keeping faith with the ideals of the pre-presidential Obama: closing Guantanamo, ending targeted killings, and so on.
Another Democrat could run to represent those Democrats who supported Bill Clinton back in the 1990s, and who worry that the Obama administration has drifted too far to the left: spending too much, ignoring budget deficits, getting into too many fights with business.

Yet another could run as a full-throated defender of the Obama legacy, updating the 1988 George H.W. Bush "stay the course" message.

This would be a real debate that would summon forth hard thinking about how Democrats might govern their country if returned for a third presidential term (as could very well happen, given the continuing political weakness of the GOP).

A Hillary Clinton campaign would want to shut down any such debate before it starts. It would want to inherit the Democratic nomination and then the presidency as an estate in reversion: a debt long owed, now collected. If successful, it would arrive in office without a platform and without much of a mandate. That's not a formula for an effective presidency -- or a healthy democracy.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/01/opinion/frum-hillary-clinton-2016/

On the whole, a pretty retarded article. (Given Frum's recent raging against pot, though, I can't say I'm really all that surprised by how retarded it is.) That said, it's pretty hilarious to see the panic already setting in, with three years and seven months still left to go before the election.

# ¿ Apr 2, 2013 19:27

B B: Dec 1, 2005

Chantilly Say posted:

I was talking to someone about the Democratic prospects for 2016 and after we agreed that Hillary was the strongest contender for the top of the ticket we both realized we didn't really know who she would pick for VP in the event of her nomination. Has there been much speculation on who the strong prospects for that would be, or will we just not know enough until we see who performs well in the primary?

By that point, Terry McAuliffe will have had some experience actually holding a public office.

# ¿ Oct 30, 2013 23:25

B B: Dec 1, 2005

DaveWoo posted:

Hey, he said not to hold it against him, okay

But seriously, though, what the hell was Schweitzer thinking. I mean, there's being a straight shooter, and then there's just being a goddamned idiot.

I'm not sure if this is worse:

Schweitzer on Feinstein posted:

She was the woman who was standing under the streetlight with her dress pulled all the way up over her knees, and now she says, �I�m a nun,� when it comes to this spying! � I mean, maybe that�s the wrong metaphor�but she was all in!

Edit: Beaten, but :wtc:

# ¿ Jun 19, 2014 17:19

B B: Dec 1, 2005

LOU BEGAS MUSTACHE posted:

romney was so bad my racist grandpa voted for obama

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJJKW7ea1oc

# ¿ Jul 30, 2014 03:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 9, 2024 07:58

B B: Dec 1, 2005

Shear Modulus posted:

Is Herman Cain running again?

Herman Cain Says He Might Run for President Again in 2016

# ¿ Aug 2, 2014 17:40

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > 2016 Presidential Primaries: Senator Agua Bottle vs Senator Aqua Buddha