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.
There was an interesting call on the Rush Limbaugh program by a caller who predicted that Hillary will not be the 2016 nominee because historically Democrats do not recycle presidential candidates. It is the GOP that does that. He seems to have a good case. Every GOP nominee going back to Reagan had previously tried for the nomination and failed, with the lone exception of George W. Bush in 2000.
By contrast I can't think of any Democratic nominee who had previously run. Al Gore is a good example. After he lost in 2000, there was no shortage of speculation that he might try again in 2004, but he didn't. I don't know why that is. Maybe Democrats are more focused on winning, and once you lose, there's an unwritten rule that you move on.
What do you think of this bit of analysis? Spot on, off base, or somewhere in between?
There was an interesting call on the Rush Limbaugh program by a caller who predicted that Hillary will not be the 2016 nominee because historically Democrats do not recycle presidential candidates. It is the GOP that does that. He seems to have a good case. Every GOP nominee going back to Reagan had previously tried for the nomination and failed, with the lone exception of George W. Bush in 2000.
By contrast I can't think of any Democratic nominee who had previously run. Al Gore is a good example. After he lost in 2000, there was no shortage of speculation that he might try again in 2004, but he didn't. I don't know why that is. Maybe Democrats are more focused on winning, and once you lose, there's an unwritten rule that you move on.
What do you think of this bit of analysis? Spot on, off base, or somewhere in between?
OK, thank you for the correction. That said, it's a slightly different scenario for a Gore, who ran, then became VP, then ran again, as opposed to say Romney or McCain who ran, didn't get the nomination, then ran again and got it. If Biden runs in 2016 he would be in the same boat as Gore.
McCain is one of many oldies but goodies from both parties that needs to step down, and I voted for him. We need fresh blood and youth in Washington, not hanger-oners who are in it for the benefits.
One thing about McCain, he only killed enemies of the USA, where as Killery kills enemies of the Clinton's and the democrat party, along with a few hundred Mexicans, and of course, a few good American's if they get in her way...
May she rot in hell...
soon....
I agree with the premise that you are getting at the GOP are far more stupid with the "If you put a fork into a light socket it's going to shock you, you don't do it again" mind set by running the same losers over and over again until they finally realize these idiots are unelectable.
The democrats on the other hand do shy away from politicians after they are found unelectable as a 2nd time around is highly unlikely to change things. Hillary on the other hand I would say is a big exception.
During the 2008 primaries, it was a dead heat between Clinton and Obama. Both were highly liked and it was one of the most competitive primaries I've ever seen. After Obama won the election, he hired Clinton to be SOS likely from how much she was approved of by the party.
All the polls have been showing Clinton is still highly approved of and would completely dominate the field if she ran.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
There was an interesting call on the Rush Limbaugh program by a caller who predicted that Hillary will not be the 2016 nominee because historically Democrats do not recycle presidential candidates. It is the GOP that does that. He seems to have a good case. Every GOP nominee going back to Reagan had previously tried for the nomination and failed, with the lone exception of George W. Bush in 2000.
By contrast I can't think of any Democratic nominee who had previously run. Al Gore is a good example. After he lost in 2000, there was no shortage of speculation that he might try again in 2004, but he didn't. I don't know why that is. Maybe Democrats are more focused on winning, and once you lose, there's an unwritten rule that you move on.
What do you think of this bit of analysis? Spot on, off base, or somewhere in between?
Off Base by a mile.
Gore ran in 1988 and was 3rd place.
Im sure we have also had this conversation before,(by we, i mean the forum), let me look it up.
Hillary has a great shot at winning the nomination. She came in second last time and then has served as Secretary of State after that. The early Obama supporters are starting to already talk about supporting Hillary. If Hillary runs and wins the nomination she will be hard to stop.
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.
