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.
Rand Paul/susanna Martinez vs. Warren/Hickenlooper
Love the Rand Paul/Martinez combo, but I think that is a dream. I hope it is a dream that comes true.
I think Warren on the left, is like Cruz on the right, but not as publically known: she is too extreme and way to new at the game. If she ever runs in will be in say, 2024ish.
I think Warren on the left, is like Cruz on the right, but not as publically known: she is too extreme and way to new at the game. If she ever runs in will be in say, 2024ish.
There is one problem - in 2024 she'll be 75, which generally is too old to be President. Her window of opportunity to get into the White House is in 2016, and between now and then she has plenty of time to cultivate a national reputation (or not; it all depends). She would be a kind of insurgent candidate, and long stretches in office are not nearly as necessary for such a candidacy as they would be for a "coronation" type of affair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clb10
My first mention of Carson was him being picked as a RUNNING MATE not the top of the ticket.
There is no rule that says one must wait 20 years to be picked as a running mate.
There are disadvantages to being a longtime officeholder, in that the disease of power-madness tends to be contagious (so to speak), so there are many more scumbags in the ranks of entrenched officeholders than there are among freshmen or novices. There are advantages to having political experience, of course, and what voters consider to be the Goldilocks amount tends to fluctuate with time. The idea of choosing a person who has never held political office before but is otherwise successful in life as a President, Vice President, or some other leadership role does have merit.
As for Ben Carson, I honestly think he'd make a better Senator than Vice President - I just see him fitting in better as a prototypical statesman-senator role than an executive role. A thinking, independent person that has been successful in life is an attractive, respectable profile (or at least it should be), even if I don't agree with all or even most of his beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sade693
Democrat doesn't mean "blindly vote for other Democrats" nor does Republican mean "blindly vote for other Republicans." What it means to belong to either party has changed DRASTICALLY over the last decade, but it's not surprising that someone who adhered to the Democratic party platform of years past would support a candidate like Christie over Clinton.
I could see a very moderate or conservative Democrat voting for Christie over Hillary or Obama, but I think Democrats as a whole would prefer one of their own to occupy the White House.
We don't know where Christie lies on a lot of the big issues like foreign affairs, but how he's governed New Jersey isn't so radically different from the ideals of the Democratic platform that a Democrat could be strongly against him. Especially if that Democrat takes issue with one thing or another about Clinton.
Secondly, it's not all that common for people to officially change their party affiliation. That's why I mentioned Democrats "of years past." There are a lot of people who are registered as Democrat/Republican who registered when their parties' platforms were significantly different, and those people just haven't dropped their party label despite the changes. Maybe because there's something too radical about the opposing party to completely change over to it (e.g. I know Democrats who would probably vote Republican if Republicans dropped their socially conservative rhetoric).
Thirdly, there's a lot of variance in each party, but the candidate who gets the nomination from your party may not be as close to your personal ideals as the candidate from the other party. So, it's perfectly reasonable for a moderate Republican to vote for a moderate Democrat if they think the Republican nominee is too far right, and for a moderate Democrat to vote for a moderate Republican if they think the Democratic nominee is too far left. Hence what I meant by not blindly voting for the person of your party affiliation if they don't represent what you believe.
^^^THIS^^^ is the type of answer i was looking for the first time.
Yes, I have read the Democratic Party platform
Yes, what Chrisite has tried to do has indeed been different from what the parties platform is. you have to remember that Chrisitie is in a blue state with a blue legislature. There are many conservative things that he has tried to do and failed at. There are also things that his legislature have forced through.
No, i highly doubt that a person who is a Democrat and believes in the party platform would choose Christie over Clinton. The only way that happens is what you already alluded to, which is that person being a single issue voter.
Chris Christie is for school vouchers, against gay marriage, for more abortion restrictions , for tax cuts( with out offsets), against further banking regulations, He is for raising the retirement age, against raising the minimum wage.
And let me be clear, there is nothing wrong with being for school vouchers, the problem arises when you look at how vouchers work. They are meant to help the poorest and most disadvantaged among us, but they dont.
Their funding comes from the same place as public school funding and they dont pay for transportation, so the kids who need them the most cant use them because they have no way of getting to a better school and then they are left behind in a school that has even less funding now because the ones who could afford to leave did.
There is one problem - in 2024 she'll be 75, which generally is too old to be President. Her window of opportunity to get into the White House is in 2016, and between now and then she has plenty of time to cultivate a national reputation (or not; it all depends). She would be a kind of insurgent candidate, and long stretches in office are not nearly as necessary for such a candidacy as they would be for a "coronation" type of affair.
There are disadvantages to being a longtime officeholder, in that the disease of power-madness tends to be contagious (so to speak), so there are many more scumbags in the ranks of entrenched officeholders than there are among freshmen or novices. There are advantages to having political experience, of course, and what voters consider to be the Goldilocks amount tends to fluctuate with time. The idea of choosing a person who has never held political office before but is otherwise successful in life as a President, Vice President, or some other leadership role does have merit.
As for Ben Carson, I honestly think he'd make a better Senator than Vice President - I just see him fitting in better as a prototypical statesman-senator role than an executive role. A thinking, independent person that has been successful in life is an attractive, respectable profile (or at least it should be), even if I don't agree with all or even most of his beliefs.
I could see a very moderate or conservative Democrat voting for Christie over Hillary or Obama, but I think Democrats as a whole would prefer one of their own to occupy the White House.
I didn't do the research on her age, but I did wonder about that. I knew she wasn't a kid just out of law school. Then, if that is the case, her supporters might as well give it up. No way will she be a serious candidate in 2 plus years. of course she could make a run for it, if she gets her butt in gear right now. But I don't see her even doing anything in the senate to get a lot of attention: certainly she is front and middle like Rand or Cruz or like Christie is as a governor. her strength is pretty much in New England and maybe a few very left wingers on the west coast. It takes years to go from academia to the Whitehouse plus charm and charisma. She has neither. At least this is how I see it, plus her lack of total honesty and the American people will not put up with that after what we have now.
Republican: Jeb Bush/Chris Christie
Democrats: Hillary Clinton/Julian Castro
that could be, but I don't think when push comes to shove, Bush will run. Not unless the possible candidates all bomb out.. As for Hillary and Castro, maybe. Even then, he is new to the scene and still might need to hold a state wide position. Remember the person who wins the VP job could become President and with Hillary's possible health problems it might be better to choose someone that would be better prepared to step into the job as President.
Love the Rand Paul/Martinez combo, but I think that is a dream. I hope it is a dream that comes true.
I think Warren on the left, is like Cruz on the right, but not as publically known: she is too extreme and way to new at the game. If she ever runs in will be in say, 2024ish.
Warrens only window is 2016. IMO she will run because I don't it matters to her if she wins....if she wins, great, if not, she'll serve to pull Hillary leftward.
Come 2016, I think both sides (cons and libs) will really get behind economic populists. Paul and Warren are definitely closer to that than the rest of their caucus.
If warren didn't run in 2016, she'll never run. It's now or never and I think she has a huge role to play (even if she doesn't win).
I am 70 years old, a registered Dem but have voted Repub several times. I voted for B. Obama the first time because I thought it was time. I should have looked closer at his background and accomplishments and listened a little more closely to him......
But, I wouldn't vote for blowhard Christie, slippery/pure politician Rubio or rigid Ryan if they were the last 3 candidates on the ballot for anything. I amazes me to hear some of you all saying the things you do and you don't know any back story on Rubio, for instance. And, currently, he is scrambling to regain his footing after the Gang of 8 debacle. But, as usual, he will say whatever he has to to claw his way back to the top. You will be fools to vote for this man. He is a good talker, just like our president was/is and it is all hot air and political rhetoric.(sp)
Christie is too confrontational for my tastes and I like a forceful man. But, he just dosen't ring true to me. To me, his being a tough guy is a role....New Jersey tough guy, James Gandolfini persona. I don't buy him.
Paul Ryan makes my hair hurt with his numbers and proposed exchanges for Medicare recipients. How much are us seniors going to have to give back after our working years are over and we paid in all those years prior ? My SS isn't much but I worked hard for it and am still working. SS benefit is so small, I have to keep working and paying in but, I don't mind that as long as I can. A lot of people can't. And the politicians, with their great pension benefits and retirement perks, want to keep slicing at the seniors. My doctor has informed me that his clinic will not continue to take Medicare patients. The reimbursement is too low for the services offered. I pay out the nose for my supp. insurance and Medicare Part D, which is a huge scam. I can't take most generic meds because of the fillers in some. Therefore, I mostly use brand names. I can't afford to pay my ins premiums and pay almost full price for brand names. But, I will be penalized/charged so much extra a month if I have to drop my plan and then try to take it up later.
...clb10....snipped....He was the Ted Cruz of his time. If Ted Cruz were to modify his message to appeal to a broader base of moderates it would be a lot like what Reagan did in '76.
With a little more research, I could be persuaded for vote for Ted Cruz. But I have to find out more about him first.
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.
