Who The 2016 Presidential Nominees Will & Won't Be (Huckabee, Democrats, Republicans)
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.
Pretty good list. Christie has too much baggage, Rubio and Cruz are looked as nut jobs, by Republicans. The Dems, well, there is only one Dem to run, Clinton.
Continuing the look at the offices from which Presidential nominees come and do not come, we have the House of Representatives. Given the sheer number of members of the larger house of Congress (435), one would think that the body would occasionally produce a Presidential nominee. But it doesn't. In the modern era, the only Presidential candidate whose last major elective office was that of Representative to make any splash at all was George H.W. Bush in 1980; that year, he won six primaries in losing the nomination to Ronald Reagan. But those six primaries are almost half of those won (14) by all Representatives combined since 1976. Bush's case is instructive. As noted previously in this thread, he was not merely a Representative but subsequently an ambassador (to the UN, and ambassador-equivalent to China), RNC Chairman and CIA Director. Still, he could parlay this into winning only half a dozen primaries. It wasn't until he had 8 years as Vice President under his belt that his political base was sufficient to make him a contender for the Republican nomination.
So why is it that Representatives do not make competitive candidates for Presidential nominations? As I alluded to regarding Bush, they lack substantive political bases. A member of the House of Representatives represents a district of under a million people. That's a fraction of 1% of the national population. Making matters worse, modern gerrymandering tends to assure that these districts are remarkably unrepresentative of the electorate even of that state - they tend to be all urban, or mostly rural, and dominated by one ideology over another. As such, Representatives have little opportunity to hone political skills beyond the narrow and skewed requirements of their small districts.
What's an aspiring President in the House to do? Well, the obvious answer is - become a United States Senator. There, the national political base increases, as does the local political base for almost all Representatives (only 7 of the 435 members of the House represent an entire state - and these of course are all sparsely populated states). Not surprisingly, over half of all current Senators used to serve in the House. So in part we also see that there is also a matter of self-selection - House members with genuine Presidential aspirations and the requisite talent to fulfill will usually plot a path to the White House that runs through the Senate. Thus, we see comparatively few sitting House members even trying for the Presidency.
A glance at history shows that the last Representative (ie, individual whose last elective office was such) who became a Presidential nominee was Williams Jennings Bryan, who served two terms in the House in the early 1890s, then was the Democratic nominee for President in 1896, 1900 and 1908 (he lost the general election all three times). Since then, we've had 26 elections and 52 major party nominees who have not come directly from the House.
Now, does this mean the House cannot produce a Presidential nominee? I don't think so. Consider a Speaker of the House, who through his leadership position is able to establish a broad political base as well as national prominence. The problem here is that most speakers tend towards the political apparatchik sort of politician - not the type who has the innate or developed skills to win a Presidential nomination. But an exception might be made for a type I'll call a revolutionary. New Gingrich fits this mold. His rise to speaker was as a political crusader. Though he only won two primaries in his run for President, I think the timing of that run distorts his potential abilities - he was at his political zenith in the mid to late 1990s. Had he run for President in 2000 or (had the GOP nomination been open) in 2004, he very likely would have fared better and might well have been a plausible nominee. Another prerequisite would be that he not have effectively destroyed himself politically with the 1998 impeachment overreach. However, that sort of burn-bright-and-burn-out-fast nature might be an inherent aspect of the political revolutionary. So I think a Representative could be a Presidential nominee - it would simply take an unusual Representative in just the right set of circumstances. It's not an impossible scenario; just one that will rarely see the stars properly align so that it might play out.
How is this relevant for 2016? Well, it means that Paul Ryan will not be the Republican nominee. Which brings us to another category I'd like to discuss...
THE LOSING RUNNING MATE FROM THE LAST ELECTION
The #2 on the most recent losing ticket always gets plenty of buzz about being the nominee the 'next time'. This amounts to little more than name recognition. Let's look at the recent number two losers:
Sarah Palin, 2008
I'll give Palin this - for all her cluelessness (partly genuine, partly exaggerated because she knows her suspicious-of-knowledge-and-people-who-sound-intelligent audience) she knows that she is not cut out for politics beyond the parochial concerns of her sparsely-populated state. And even though the notion of her running for and winning the 2012 nomination was ludicrous from the beginning, she still led some of the very early polls for the 2012 Republican nomination. This is a classic example of name-recognition and nothing more.
John Edwards, 2004
Edwards might've been a viable contender for a Presidential nomination, but not because he was on the 2004 ticket. Rather, it was because he was a U.S. Senator from a moderately large state. His train-wreck of a personal life and how it might have impacted his candidacy is another matter.
Joe Lieberman, 2000
It's true - Lieberman led in some early polls for the 2004 Democratic nomination. Despite having virtually no base within the party, and having a personality that makes Walter Mondale look downright charismatic, name-recognition vaulted him to the top of the polls for a time. And he did run for President in 2004. His best showing before he dropped out? 11% in the Delaware primary, 39% behind winner John Kerry.
Indeed, if we look back an entire century, we see only three running mates on a losing ticket who went on to win a future nomination: Bob Dole, Walter Mondale, and Franklin Roosevelt. But each case reveals that those individuals were nominees for reasons other than being a failed running mate. In 1996, Bob Dole won the Republican nomination based on his long tenure in the Senate, including two stints as Majority Leader - not because he was Ford's running mate in 1976. In 1984, Walter Mondale was the Democratic nominee because of his time in the Senate and then the Vice Presidency, not because he was on the 1980 ticket. And FDR used the governorship of New York, not his spot on the failed 1920 Democratic ticket, to gain the 1932 nomination.
Paul Ryan could have a shot at a Presidential nomination sometime in the future beyond 2016. But he first needs to burnish his resume with a stint in the Senate, in the statehouse in Madison, or perhaps in the cabinet of a future Republican administration. He's not getting there from the House itself.
So, neither nominee in 2016 will be a current/recent member of the United States House of Representatives. Ryan doesn't look like he's even considering a run (he probably knows better). Peter King of New York, who has announced that he was running (and later dialed that back a bit) has a host of problems beyond simply being a House member. Others - Mike Rogers of Michigan, Dennis Kucinich of Ohio (at one point, anyway), Allen West from Florida - range from not plausible (Rogers) to outright laughable (the latter two) as potential Presidential nominees.
Sample size of 20 is too small to make a reliable prediction. The next president will probably be an ex-governor or Senator, but it is not written in stone. Statistically, there is no reason to think that it's impossible that the next president couldbeanex-neurosurgeon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
We get it, you like Carson.
Dr. Carson is very popular and respected among conservatives. Unfortunately, in a practical sense, he is unelectable for the top spot. No political office experience and low name recognition outside the GOP. A pity, his calm logic and pragmatic solutions for the nation's issues would make him an excellent choice as President.
This is just a friendly reminder that there are four types of Presidential nominees in the modern era - ie, 1976 to present, since the parties have fully utilized the primary & caucus system for selecting their nominees. In fact, this trend goes back to 1960. Yes, all 28 major-party nominees since then have fallen into one of these categories, by the most significant office held to that point:
*Incumbent Presidents (Johnson in 1964, Nixon in 1972, Ford in 1976, Carter in 1980, Reagan in 1984, GHW Bush in 1992, Clinton in 1996, GW Bush in 2004, Obama in 2012)
*Sitting or former Vice Presidents (Nixon in 1960, Nixon & Humphrey in 1968, Mondale in 1984, GHW Bush in 1988, Gore in 2000)
*Sitting or former Governors (Carter in 1976, Reagan in 1980, Dukakis in 1988, Clinton in 1992, GW Bush in 2000, Romney in 2012)
*Sitting or former Senators (Kennedy in 1960, Goldwater in 1964, McGovern in 1972, Dole in 1996, Kerry in 2004, Obama & McCain in 2008)
That's it. Since the incumbent President is not eligible for another term, and since the only living Vice President who has shown any interest at all in running is Biden (who is unlikely to run and has almost no chance of being the nominee), it is therefore obvious to anyone who understands both recent historical precedent and modern major-party nominating dynamics that the 2016 nominees will be selected from the ranks of current and former Governors and Senators.
This adds nothing to the assessment of the Democratic field, aside from the fact that the very likely nominee is obvious, for all candidates have been either Governors or Senators.
On the Republican side, however, we have the usual sprinkling of white knights - non-politicians idolized by those who fantasize about a valiant outsider who comes to Washington, knocks some heads, and gets everything done (yes, some people are indeed this delusional). And they are:
Ben Carson
Carly Fiorina
Donald Trump
And not only will none of them be the Republican nominee, none of them will win a single primary or caucus.
Remember - what will happen and what you want to happen are two entirely different and unrelated things...
The bottom line:
Both the Democrats and Republicans will nominate a current (in 2016) or former Governor or Senator for President in 2016.
Totally agree. Excellent research. Everything moves in cycles -- Earth, planets in our solar system, seasons, you name it -- it's the natural, universal law of what people call "history repeating itself." Besides that, I feel purely on instinct that this will be the outcome.
Rubio, Bush, Kasich, and Walker are the only people I can see winning the nomination at this point. I also think those who fail to win the nomination will be strongly considered or chosen for VP.
If Rubio wins.. I can see a Rubio-Walker or after maybe Rubio-Kasich (Florida-Ohio ticket would be quite attractive for any party).
If Walker wins.. I can see him going with Rubio
If Kasich wins.. I can see him choosing Rubio
I'm not sure who Bush might choose.
But I think it's almost a guarantee that either Bush or Rubio will be the nominee or VP pick (I do not imagine that Bush would be anyone's VP choice though).
Rubio, Bush, Kasich, and Walker are the only people I can see winning the nomination at this point. I also think those who fail to win the nomination will be strongly considered or chosen for VP.
If Rubio wins.. I can see a Rubio-Walker or after maybe Rubio-Kasich (Florida-Ohio ticket would be quite attractive for any party).
If Walker wins.. I can see him going with Rubio
If Kasich wins.. I can see him choosing Rubio
I'm not sure who Bush might choose.
But I think it's almost a guarantee that either Bush or Rubio will be the nominee or VP pick (I do not imagine that Bush would be anyone's VP choice though).
I think it is going to be Kasich AND Rubio
Kasich is a mature and established politician. In all fairness, his record showed that he was a true job creator, he did take that state of Ohio from an $8 billion hole … to a $2 billion surplus.
Rubio is too young (Only 15 years older than me ) He is vp choice, not presidential.
Most importantly, people from the left seem to like Kasich.
Yeah, I am just thinking that there could be an Obama-Biden style ticket (a youthful nominee with an older statesman for a running mate). As unfair as it is, I do not see Kasich being exciting enough to be at the front of the ticket. People might see him as another Romney (even though he does have a much better track record in a very important state).
I just think the Republicans will want to be seen as a party of the future with fresh ideas. Kasich, to an average voter, might seem like a run-of-the-mill voter.
And lastly, your assessment is correct. I am not a conservative, but I think Kasich-Rubio would be a strong ticket. I had been thinking Walker-Rubio or Rubio-Walker would be a strong ticket, but I will wait and see how Walker performs.
And lastly, your assessment is correct. I am not a conservative, but I think Kasich-Rubio would be a strong ticket. I had been thinking Walker-Rubio or Rubio-Walker would be a strong ticket, but I will wait and see how Walker performs.
I am glad. This country needs a strong economy. Kasich is a job creator at the very very least.
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.
) He is vp choice, not presidential.
