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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,327 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40731
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndfmnlf
With all the speculating about Hillary making a run again for the presidency in 2016, why not Al Gore? That would be another interesting Democratic primary season.
Well I don't agree with you, but that is what makes these boards so interesting and yes, educational many times: I think she is beatable, she has so much baggage. Those of us who remember her clean back to the early 90s know this, plus she has no personality and comes across as a *****, whether true or not.
As for the Republicans: There are several good, young, Republicans; Paul will attract a lot of young voters because of his libertarian views: Jindel isn't boring like he was. He has come a long way, far enough no one knows Bush certainly isn't as lacking is personality and charisma as Hillary. Plus there are other names that you haven't mentioned like Christie and Rubio.
At this point everyone so familiar with Hilary's laundry, there is literally nothing that can possibly surprise us at this point. If her opponent uses this, he'll be scene as drudging up a past most voters don't care about. Most people won't care much about what happened in the 90s; it's old news.
She might not be charismatic, but she's been through so many campaigns, she'll likely have a major strategic advantage over everyone else on both sides. She made lots of mistakes that cost her the nomination last time; I doubt she'll repeat most of them.
I actually like many things about Rand Paul, but as a libertarian many of his positions are completely unacceptable to core Republicans, specifically: support for drug legalization, and his general opposition to most military action. He'll certainly attract more young voters (something Republicans desperately need), but doubt he has a plausible chance of getting the nomination.
I haven't seen Jindel lately, but in his last nationally prominent appearance he came off as weirdly robotic. I hate to say this, but many core Republicans are so racist and anti-immigrant they won't support him because of his ethnicity.
Bush might be the most politically appealing in the bunch, but after the disaster W was, I'm not sure the country will be receptive to electing another member of the Bush clan.
Christie was once the strongest candidate, but his credibility has absolutely plummeted lately. He now seems like more of an opportunistic bully than the straight-shooter he once presented himself as. Of course all those pictures of him cozying up with Obama during H-Sandy didn't go over well with the base either.
In virtually every prominent appearance, Rubio has sound scripted and looked uncomfortable in the national spotlight. Apart from being Hispanic (both an asset and a liability), what else does he have?
And once again the intercine Republican primary battle will smear and scar the eventual nominee. Obama barely had to smear Romney at all because his Republican opponents had already done it.
Hilary, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any serious Democratic rivals. While Biden is sort of oddly likable, he just doesn't come off as presidential. He'll probably run, but will be gone quickly. Warren is too new, and isn't well known outside of those of us who regularly follow politics. I can't think of anyone else who might be even slightly interested in challenging her. This will enable her to wrap up the nomination quickly and focus on her national campaign while the Republicans are still fighting each other.
With all the speculating about Hillary making a run again for the presidency in 2016, why not Al Gore? That would be another interesting Democratic primary season.
At this point everyone so familiar with Hilary's laundry, there is literally nothing that can possibly surprise us at this point. If her opponent uses this, he'll be scene as drudging up a past most voters don't care about. Most people won't care much about what happened in the 90s; it's old news.
She might not be charismatic, but she's been through so many campaigns, she'll likely have a major strategic advantage over everyone else on both sides. She made lots of mistakes that cost her the nomination last time; I doubt she'll repeat most of them.
I actually like many things about Rand Paul, but as a libertarian many of his positions are completely unacceptable to core Republicans, specifically: support for drug legalization, and his general opposition to most military action. He'll certainly attract more young voters (something Republicans desperately need), but doubt he has a plausible chance of getting the nomination.
I haven't seen Jindel lately, but in his last nationally prominent appearance he came off as weirdly robotic. I hate to say this, but many core Republicans are so racist and anti-immigrant they won't support him because of his ethnicity.
Bush might be the most politically appealing in the bunch, but after the disaster W was, I'm not sure the country will be receptive to electing another member of the Bush clan.
Christie was once the strongest candidate, but his credibility has absolutely plummeted lately. He now seems like more of an opportunistic bully than the straight-shooter he once presented himself as. Of course all those pictures of him cozying up with Obama during H-Sandy didn't go over well with the base either.
In virtually every prominent appearance, Rubio has sound scripted and looked uncomfortable in the national spotlight. Apart from being Hispanic (both an asset and a liability), what else does he have?
And once again the intercine Republican primary battle will smear and scar the eventual nominee. Obama barely had to smear Romney at all because his Republican opponents had already done it.
Hilary, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any serious Democratic rivals. While Biden is sort of oddly likable, he just doesn't come off as presidential. He'll probably run, but will be gone quickly. Warren is too new, and isn't well known outside of those of us who regularly follow politics. I can't think of anyone else who might be even slightly interested in challenging her. This will enable her to wrap up the nomination quickly and focus on her national campaign while the Republicans are still fighting each other.
sdoome of what you say, of course is your opinion only, but has some good points. As for Hilalry and her past, believe me, it will come up, she will have to have good answers, she will have to separate herself from Obama and yet,justify why she stayed with him four years, plus young voters do not know as much about her past as some of us do. This will be new to them.
I agree about Chirstie but don't count him out.
Rubio, I disagree with you: I think he is an exellent speaker.
Rand Paul, many of us like his ideas and yet, are not sold on the entire libertarian ideas. I think he comes the closest to the views I share, but some of what he says makes me cringe. I still think the young people will swarm to him.
The next election, hopeully will be different from 2012, but remember, regardless of the disaster debates, there was not a decent R. running. They all had serious drawbacks, not to mention Romney made serious mistakes and blacks, who do not always vote, came out for Obama, plus it is not easy to beat a seating president. 2016 isn't 2012.
The worst mistake the Dems can do is not find someone to challenge Hillary. If not, she will old hat to many and not exciting. People like to see a fight and really understand how a candidate feels.
He ran one of the worst campaigns Ive ever seen in my life in 2000. Dude was scared of Clinton because the right wing attacks on the Monica scandal despite nobody really caring and his popularity being immense
He ran one of the worst campaigns Ive ever seen in my life in 2000. Dude was scared of Clinton because the right wing attacks on the Monica scandal despite nobody really caring and his popularity being immense
no way a bad candidate on many levels and his current business affairs is not a bell ringer.
Rand Paul, many of us like his ideas and yet, are not sold on the entire libertarian ideas. I think he comes the closest to the views I share, but some of what he says makes me cringe. I still think the young people will swarm to him.
Yeah, I feel very much the same way. I appreciate him because he's philosophically consistent, but he already seems to be distancing himself from some of us previous statements; probably because he knows they won't be very popular.
Even though he'd have decent popular support, in terms of the political establishment, he falls in the cracks. Unfortunately, that makes it very difficult for him to win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
The next election, hopeully will be different from 2012, but remember, regardless of the disaster debates, there was not a decent R. running. They all had serious drawbacks, not to mention Romney made serious mistakes and blacks, who do not always vote, came out for Obama, plus it is not easy to beat a seating president. 2016 isn't 2012.
While the Republicans probably won't be quite as bad in 2016, I don't see any that look overwhelmingly strong either. Bush and Christie probably have the widest political appeal, but neither will get much support form younger voters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
The worst mistake the Dems can do is not find someone to challenge Hillary. If not, she will old hat to many and not exciting. People like to see a fight and really understand how a candidate feels.
I'm not sure. On one hand, a challenge might really help prepare the Democratic candidate for the general election the way it did for Obama in 2008. On the other if it got too ugly it could damage her/him the way Romney was damaged in 2012. But as I said, who do the Democrats really have to challenge her? A count the number of potential challengers I can think of on 3 fingers, and none seems very strong.
Now consider how wide Hilary's appeal is: most women, decent minority support, educated voters. I think the only major weakness she'll have will be among older white male voters (particularly those less educated); this was also a major weakness for Obama, but ultimately it didn't matter. Her campaign will also have the most money (by a significant margin), and she's had, what, 20 years campaign experience?
I'm curious: how old are you? It's my understanding most younger voters don't care about the personal issues the Clintons had in 1992-2000. I doubt there's anything that can emerge at this point we don't already know. Unless she really screws up (entirely possible, but not likely), she's the odds-on favorite.
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.
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.
