U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-25-2014, 02:19 PM
 
49,247 posts, read 39,678,853 times
Reputation: 30883

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverkris View Post
All this talk about age is just silly. Konrad Adenauer, the 1st post-war German chancellor, was older.

Look, if you don't like her, OK. But this is a pretty flimsy pretext.
It's not a pretext.

Advancing age has been cause for concern and rightfully so for what is a 4-year term.

On top of that, a lot of voters just don't like it....they like the younger, better looking, more vibrant candidates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-25-2014, 02:23 PM
 
49,247 posts, read 39,678,853 times
Reputation: 30883
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike View Post
I share your doubts, but Hillary looks very fit, refreshed and rested now.
It's very obvious she has been spending a lot of time with Bill in the exercise room, and she looks to be in better shape than she was in 2008.

Granted, she will never be a hot grannie like Sarah Palin, but she's looking healthy now. Healthier than Sarah, who seems to be afflicted with eating disorders again.

One thing I know about Mrs Clinton is her loyalty. If the Democratic leadership appeal to her to run, she will, if there is a lack of another good candidate, and she will give it everything she has.
Loyalty?

Hillary will run for herself....not out of loyalty to the dem party.

In fact, some of her recent pre-campaigning is causing heartburn for some democratic candidates this midterm.

Personally, Hillary should have been the dem nominee in 2008 and Obama should have gotten another 8 years of seasoning and experience.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 02:26 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
19,531 posts, read 13,169,017 times
Reputation: 14239
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
I hadn't thought of that possibility, but it could be. The last prez to run with such a plan may have been James Polk (born 1795), who promised to serve only one term and did so. My opionion has been that Hillary will not run, but it's just guesswork. She didn't really want the SOS job in 2008; why would she want the POTUS job in 2016. Her grandchild is on the way in fall 2014, so what is more important? The call of duty from the DNC, or her grandchild?

It's all just speculation, but if I were a betting man I would bet on Joe Biden as the 2016 nominee.
I doubt being a grandmother in the White House would pose much of a problem. The White House has easily accommodated many extended presidential families from the beginning, sometimes for extended periods of time.

The question of Hillary running for re-election after winning is valid.

Since she is the only consistently highly favorable possible candidate who has retained very high poll ratings, and looks to be the early front runner once again, right now, it's pretty obvious that she must be considering a run.

Winning and serving a single term presents advantages to the Democratic party. Like the Republicans, the Democrats have a pretty big bench of future potentials who could run and win after her, but none have reached her level of public awareness and acceptance yet. 4 years of her presidency would certainly be more than enough time for some of them to emerge and become widely known.

4 years will also allow future potential candidates to gain experience and become tempered in the ways of government, things both parties don't have much right now. There simply aren't very many experienced Senators and Governors with solid track records around who want the job or the rigors of a presidential campaign.

4 years of Hillary as president could become a potential boon to both parties. The GOP could become the bigger beneficiary, as by then, I expect their internal civil war will have burned out. 2020 could be the year a solid GOP, tested from it's long internal struggles and once again reunited, could come forth with a winning candidate they all can get behind from the first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 05:04 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 13,678,086 times
Reputation: 7921
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
My thought: if she decides to run in 2016 and wins, she will continue in 2020. She will have proven she loves the lime light too much to give up. Of course her health could enter the picture.
That makes sense. If she does run, it will mean that she is craving the power, and if she wins in 2016 it would be unlikely she would cede in 2020.

If she's having her doubts about running, as I suspect she is, it's going to be a tough decision for her, since she seemingly has such a clear path to the WH. She won't have any real rivals in the primaries, and Democrats seem to think that the R field will be weak. I don't agree, but that seems to be the dominant Dem perception right now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 05:22 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 13,678,086 times
Reputation: 7921
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaseyB View Post
Joe Biden is older than Hillary. He's 71 and would be 73 in 2016.
Yes. However, it just seems to me like age has taken more of a toll on Hillary than on Joe Biden. Biden always seemed like one of those guys who is 15-20 years younger than his driver's license would indicate. Hillary did not want the SOS slot in 2008. She said she was tired of working 20 hour days. Biden never hesitated in accepting the VP slot.

Another factor is that Hillary still has a pretty good PR image, even after Benghazi, so she could retire and rest on her laurels. Biden has this image of being a buffoon, even though he is respected as being a serious player among DC insiders. So Biden might have extra incentive to run, just for the chance to remake his image. Plus he has said that he wants to run, or at least implied it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 06:08 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 16,523,681 times
Reputation: 7274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post

Personally, Hillary should have been the dem nominee in 2008 and Obama should have gotten another 8 years of seasoning and experience.
Either way, we were in for at least 12 years of Obama/Hillary. It would have been 16 had she run in 2008 and won the nomination. Now my hunch is we'll have someone like Andrew Cuomo as POTUS come 2020.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 06:11 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 16,523,681 times
Reputation: 7274
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
That makes sense. If she does run, it will mean that she is craving the power, and if she wins in 2016 it would be unlikely she would cede in 2020.

If she's having her doubts about running, as I suspect she is, it's going to be a tough decision for her, since she seemingly has such a clear path to the WH. She won't have any real rivals in the primaries, and Democrats seem to think that the R field will be weak. I don't agree, but that seems to be the dominant Dem perception right now.
The Blue Wall will ride the Dem nominee in, until the GOP comes up with nominees (and their lifelong history) and platforms appealing to states inside that wall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 06:49 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 13,678,086 times
Reputation: 7921
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
The Blue Wall will ride the Dem nominee in, until the GOP comes up with nominees (and their lifelong history) and platforms appealing to states inside that wall.
I have a stock answer for this. In the late 1990's there was a popular book by a couple of poli sci profs entitled The Emerging Democratic Majority
http://www.amazon.com/Emerging-Democ.../dp/0743254783

By 2000, R's controlled the WH, US House, and US Senate. Then Karl Rove starting making noises about a 40 GOP dynasty. By 2008, D's controlled the US House, the WH, and the US Senate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 06:57 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 16,523,681 times
Reputation: 7274
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
I have a stock answer for this. In the late 1990's there was a popular book by a couple of poli sci profs entitled The Emerging Democratic Majority
The Emerging Democratic Majority: John B. Judis, Ruy Teixeira: 9780743254786: Amazon.com: Books

By 2000, R's controlled the WH, US House, and US Senate. Then Karl Rove starting making noises about a 40 GOP dynasty. By 2008, D's controlled the US House, the WH, and the US Senate.
I've ordered the book. Sounds interesting. The nation has simply gotten more socially progressive at a time when the GOP got less socially progressive. My hunch is the wall would have been breached by a fiscally conservative/socially moderate-slightly left of center candidate. But socially conservative rigid views fortified the wall, and cooked the GOP's goose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 07:47 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 13,678,086 times
Reputation: 7921
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
I've ordered the book. Sounds interesting. The nation has simply gotten more socially progressive at a time when the GOP got less socially progressive. My hunch is the wall would have been breached by a fiscally conservative/socially moderate-slightly left of center candidate. But socially conservative rigid views fortified the wall, and cooked the GOP's goose.

I am non-religious and think I could claim the label 'social liberal,' but it has never stopped me from voting Republican. Social conservatism just doesn't have much impact on policy. Anyway, back when I was younger and a little bit of a strip club aficionado, I saw much more restrictions coming from nannyist Seattle liberals than from Christian conservatives.

Christianity is a religion of volition. Any true Christian will admit that the Biblical approach is to get someone to voluntarily agree to change their behavior, not to impose it on them by force of law and threat of arrest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top