Who will run in 2016?

Mott the Hoople

Mott the Hoople

Sweet Jane
I think the Democratic nomination will be more interesting than the Republican.

There are currently five front runners for the Republican nomination and no....Rand Paul is definately not one of them (That's just libertarian lala land wishful thinking.). Those are, in no particular order. Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Condeleza Rice.

Republicans would be idiots to nominate anyone other than Christie. He's the only electable candidate they have. He's tough on foriegn policy, he's pro business, he's a moderate on most issues and he's shown the bipartisan ability to build coalitions and get things done.

Ryan might as well have "Owned by the Koch Brothers" tatooed on his forehead. His economic and social views will alienate minorities and women. He's incapable of building a winning coalition. This nation needs another Bush like it needs a hole in it's head but after Christie Jeb would be the only other viable candidate, though a long shot to beat a tough Dem opponent. Rubio is a rookie and too inexperienced and hasn't show the political ability to build a winning coalition, not at the national level. Condeleza Rice, who has shown no inclination to run for public office, has never ran a campaign for elective office and has the immoral war in Iraq hanging over her head like a lead anchor. Not a chance of her winning.

Democrats have more interesting possibilities. Hilliary Clinton would be the obvious front runner if she chose to run and would probably win if anyone but Christie is nominated by the Republicans. Joe Biden comes in close second as a sitting Veep for getting the nomination but the track record of Veeps/Senators running for the top job hasn't been steeler with a few notable exceptions. Then there's Joes ability to put his foot in his mouth. My personal favorite is John Warner. Like Christie he's a crossover politician who appeals to moderate of both stripes and has a steller public/private career. He's also a dynamic personality. Andrew Cuomo is more of a dark horse candidate but is one of the more popular governors in the nation.

If Hilliary does run then my guess is that the race would be between her and Chris Christie. The question then would be could Christie win the nomination with out destroying his national election possibilities like Romney did with the incessantly long GOP primary that forced him to move way to far to the right.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I think the Democratic nomination will be more interesting than the Republican.

There are currently five front runners for the Republican nomination and no....Rand Paul is definately not one of them (That's just libertarian lala land wishful thinking.). Those are, in no particular order. Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Condeleza Rice.

Republicans would be idiots to nominate anyone other than Christie. He's the only electable candidate they have. He's tough on foriegn policy, he's pro business, he's a moderate on most issues and he's shown the bipartisan ability to build coalitions and get things done.

Ryan might as well have "Owned by the Koch Brothers" tatooed on his forehead. His economic and social views will alienate minorities and women. He's incapable of building a winning coalition. This nation needs another Bush like it needs a hole in it's head but after Christie Jeb would be the only other viable candidate, though a long shot to beat a tough Dem opponent. Rubio is a rookie and too inexperienced and hasn't show the political ability to build a winning coalition, not at the national level. Condeleza Rice, who has shown no inclination to run for public office, has never ran a campaign for elective office and has the immoral war in Iraq hanging over her head like a lead anchor. Not a chance of her winning.

Democrats have more interesting possibilities. Hilliary Clinton would be the obvious front runner if she chose to run and would probably win if anyone but Christie is nominated by the Republicans. Joe Biden comes in close second as a sitting Veep for getting the nomination but the track record of Veeps/Senators running for the top job hasn't been steeler with a few notable exceptions. Then there's Joes ability to put his foot in his mouth. My personal favorite is John Warner. Like Christie he's a crossover politician who appeals to moderate of both stripes and has a steller public/private career. He's also a dynamic personality. Andrew Cuomo is more of a dark horse candidate but is one of the more popular governors in the nation.

If Hilliary does run then my guess is that the race would be between her and Chris Christie. The question then would be could Christie win the nomination with out destroying his national election possibilities like Romney did with the incessantly long GOP primary that forced him to move way to far to the right.
Click to expand...

Who cares?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I think the Democratic nomination will be more interesting than the Republican.

There are currently five front runners for the Republican nomination and no....Rand Paul is definately not one of them (That's just libertarian lala land wishful thinking.). Those are, in no particular order. Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Condeleza Rice.

Republicans would be idiots to nominate anyone other than Christie. He's the only electable candidate they have. He's tough on foriegn policy, he's pro business, he's a moderate on most issues and he's shown the bipartisan ability to build coalitions and get things done.

Ryan might as well have "Owned by the Koch Brothers" tatooed on his forehead. His economic and social views will alienate minorities and women. He's incapable of building a winning coalition. This nation needs another Bush like it needs a hole in it's head but after Christie Jeb would be the only other viable candidate, though a long shot to beat a tough Dem opponent. Rubio is a rookie and too inexperienced and hasn't show the political ability to build a winning coalition, not at the national level. Condeleza Rice, who has shown no inclination to run for public office, has never ran a campaign for elective office and has the immoral war in Iraq hanging over her head like a lead anchor. Not a chance of her winning.

Democrats have more interesting possibilities. Hilliary Clinton would be the obvious front runner if she chose to run and would probably win if anyone but Christie is nominated by the Republicans. Joe Biden comes in close second as a sitting Veep for getting the nomination but the track record of Veeps/Senators running for the top job hasn't been steeler with a few notable exceptions. Then there's Joes ability to put his foot in his mouth. My personal favorite is John Warner. Like Christie he's a crossover politician who appeals to moderate of both stripes and has a steller public/private career. He's also a dynamic personality. Andrew Cuomo is more of a dark horse candidate but is one of the more popular governors in the nation.

If Hilliary does run then my guess is that the race would be between her and Chris Christie. The question then would be could Christie win the nomination with out destroying his national election possibilities like Romney did with the incessantly long GOP primary that forced him to move way to far to the right.
Click to expand...

Paul Ryan is cursed, unsuccessful VP bids don't win nominations for Presidency.

Christie could recover from his cooperating with the bad guys, there is still time.

Jeb Bush is too moderate.

Marco Rubio supports immigration.

Condi is too damaged by the Bush Administration, and the ignored warnings 911 and the Iraq War statements of her own.
 
Unless the GOP just wants to wake up some morning in the summer of 2016 and have their dream candidate emerge from a pod like out of THe Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the GOP should start caring NOW who might be their candidate in 2016. Whoever it is will have to run against Hillary and that will be a long uphill slog for any republican.

ANd I know that a majority of diehard republicans absolutely HATE Hillary Clinton... but that should only serve to inform them of just how marginalized they are becoming, because a whole bunch of democrats, moderates and independents like Hillary a LOT.

bottom line: Hillary hatred will not get it done unless you've got an absolutely fabulous candidate that appeals to not only the base, but to the middle. Who might that be? From my perspective, I could give a fuck. I'll vote for Hillary and my money says she'll be the president until 2025. THe GOP needs to come up with their best shot, and saying "who cares? It's only 2013" is myopic... but hey... you go boys!
 
Rana said:
Paul Ryan is cursed, unsuccessful VP bids don't win nominations for Presidency.

Christie could recover from his cooperating with the bad guys, there is still time.

Jeb Bush is too moderate.

Marco Rubio supports immigration.

Condi is too damaged by the Bush Administration, and the ignored warnings 911 and the Iraq War statements of her own.
Click to expand...

FDR lost as the VP candidate in 1920, so the precedent exists. In fact, he ran with a bunch of dicks.
 
cawacko said:
I know this is a political board so this would be the place to come have this discussion but after reading the subject heading I had the same thought, it's still early 2013 who cares about 2016?
Click to expand...
Because for all practical purposes considering the resources it takes to mount a natonal campaign the nomination process will begin in early 2014. That's only 7 months from now. Not 2.5 years!
 
maineman said:
Unless the GOP just wants to wake up some morning in the summer of 2016 and have their dream candidate emerge from a pod like out of THe Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the GOP should start caring NOW who might be their candidate in 2016. Whoever it is will have to run against Hillary and that will be a long uphill slog for any republican.

ANd I know that a majority of diehard republicans absolutely HATE Hillary Clinton... but that should only serve to inform them of just how marginalized they are becoming, because a whole bunch of democrats, moderates and independents like Hillary a LOT.

bottom line: Hillary hatred will not get it done unless you've got an absolutely fabulous candidate that appeals to not only the base, but to the middle. Who might that be? From my perspective, I could give a fuck. I'll vote for Hillary and my money says she'll be the president until 2025. THe GOP needs to come up with their best shot, and saying "who cares? It's only 2013" is myopic... but hey... you go boys!
Click to expand...
That's why I think Christie throwing his hat in the ring fairly soon is critical. I think he has the ability to save the Republican party from that bubbazation that has marginalized it. Hardcore wingnuts in the south won't like it but they didn't like Romney either. If Christie can win the nomination while eschewing the southern strategy and its institutionalized bigotry and it's reactionary foreign policy then I'd have to give serious consideration to voting for him as he is not a right wing ideologue with a penchant for making stupid decision like the Shrub was. He's proven he's capable and that he'd govern in the peoples interest and not the party.

I have reservations about Christie and Hilliary. Christie is a perambulating coronary by pass operation and Hilliary is getting long in the tooth. If she were to win she's be 68 pushing 69. I still remember how his age affected Reagans administration. He was game for his first six years but his last two years was a case of "The lights are on but nobody's home" as he was all ready significantly impacted by senile dementia. To state the obvious the Presidency is a fairly tough job for a septagenarian.
 
maineman said:
Unless the GOP just wants to wake up some morning in the summer of 2016 and have their dream candidate emerge from a pod like out of THe Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the GOP should start caring NOW who might be their candidate in 2016. Whoever it is will have to run against Hillary and that will be a long uphill slog for any republican.

ANd I know that a majority of diehard republicans absolutely HATE Hillary Clinton... but that should only serve to inform them of just how marginalized they are becoming, because a whole bunch of democrats, moderates and independents like Hillary a LOT.

bottom line: Hillary hatred will not get it done unless you've got an absolutely fabulous candidate that appeals to not only the base, but to the middle. Who might that be? From my perspective, I could give a fuck. I'll vote for Hillary and my money says she'll be the president until 2025. THe GOP needs to come up with their best shot, and saying "who cares? It's only 2013" is myopic... but hey... you go boys!
Click to expand...

So you think Hillary is so formidable a candidate that you guys nominated the black instead? Hell, even you demalquedacrats didn't want Hillary in 2008. And don't forget, in 2005, and 2006 and 2007, Hillary was a slam dunk candidate according to lefties because she lived in the White House and was a carpetbagging Senator from New York. But, then all of a sudden out of the blue comes a Kenyan born muslime, one term Senator from Illinois that upset her applecart. So forgive me if I am a little doubtful about your "Hillary is a slam dunk" ideas.


Oh yeah, I know. This time is different right?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's why I think Christie throwing his hat in the ring fairly soon is critical. I think he has the ability to save the Republican party from that bubbazation that has marginalized it. Hardcore wingnuts in the south won't like it but they didn't like Romney either. If Christie can win the nomination while eschewing the southern strategy and its institutionalized bigotry and it's reactionary foreign policy then I'd have to give serious consideration to voting for him as he is not a right wing ideologue with a penchant for making stupid decision like the Shrub was. He's proven he's capable and that he'd govern in the peoples interest and not the party.

I have reservations about Christie and Hilliary. Christie is a perambulating coronary by pass operation and Hilliary is getting long in the tooth. If she were to win she's be 68 pushing 69. I still remember how his age affected Reagans administration. He was game for his first six years but his last two years was a case of "The lights are on but nobody's home" as he was all ready significantly impacted by senile dementia. To state the obvious the Presidency is a fairly tough job for a septagenarian.
Click to expand...

Weren't McCain and Romney supposed to do the same things in 2008 and 2012? I seem to remember the libtards saying that "McCain is the GOPs only chance in 2008" and "Romney is the GOPs only chance in 2012" and what happened? They both lost miserably.

So excuse me if I find it laughable that demalquedacrats such as you and Rana have the best interests of the GOP at heart. But, hey you can pretend right?
 
BTW the Benghazi shit has yet to hit the fan. When it does Obummer will throw Hillary's ass under the bus so fast it will make your head spin. Look on the bright side she will go down in history as the only Secretary of State to get fucked by two Presidents.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I think the Democratic nomination will be more interesting than the Republican.

There are currently five front runners for the Republican nomination and no....Rand Paul is definately not one of them (That's just libertarian lala land wishful thinking.). Those are, in no particular order. Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Condeleza Rice.

Republicans would be idiots to nominate anyone other than Christie. He's the only electable candidate they have. He's tough on foriegn policy, he's pro business, he's a moderate on most issues and he's shown the bipartisan ability to build coalitions and get things done.

Ryan might as well have "Owned by the Koch Brothers" tatooed on his forehead. His economic and social views will alienate minorities and women. He's incapable of building a winning coalition. This nation needs another Bush like it needs a hole in it's head but after Christie Jeb would be the only other viable candidate, though a long shot to beat a tough Dem opponent. Rubio is a rookie and too inexperienced and hasn't show the political ability to build a winning coalition, not at the national level. Condeleza Rice, who has shown no inclination to run for public office, has never ran a campaign for elective office and has the immoral war in Iraq hanging over her head like a lead anchor. Not a chance of her winning.

Democrats have more interesting possibilities. Hilliary Clinton would be the obvious front runner if she chose to run and would probably win if anyone but Christie is nominated by the Republicans. Joe Biden comes in close second as a sitting Veep for getting the nomination but the track record of Veeps/Senators running for the top job hasn't been steeler with a few notable exceptions. Then there's Joes ability to put his foot in his mouth. My personal favorite is John Warner. Like Christie he's a crossover politician who appeals to moderate of both stripes and has a steller public/private career. He's also a dynamic personality. Andrew Cuomo is more of a dark horse candidate but is one of the more popular governors in the nation.

If Hilliary does run then my guess is that the race would be between her and Chris Christie. The question then would be could Christie win the nomination with out destroying his national election possibilities like Romney did with the incessantly long GOP primary that forced him to move way to far to the right.
Click to expand...

i tend to agree with you except on two points

christies needs to get healthier before he runs for national office and any other repug is not a likely winner

hilary is most likely dim nomine, but has a bad history with the repugs, but she has bill as an ally and likely obama and those years as a star sec state

that and the country may be ready for a female president

it would be interesting if the dims won the whitehouse for 3 maybe 4 terms in a row

while the repugs are learning to organize year round, they still have an overall problem with the growing minority population and women, especially if they keep going after social engineering like antiabortion and anti-birth control

back to christie, he would have to move to the right or risk losing the repug base without which no repug can win
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I think the Democratic nomination will be more interesting than the Republican.

There are currently five front runners for the Republican nomination and no....Rand Paul is definately not one of them (That's just libertarian lala land wishful thinking.). Those are, in no particular order. Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Condeleza Rice.

Republicans would be idiots to nominate anyone other than Christie. He's the only electable candidate they have. He's tough on foriegn policy, he's pro business, he's a moderate on most issues and he's shown the bipartisan ability to build coalitions and get things done.

Ryan might as well have "Owned by the Koch Brothers" tatooed on his forehead. His economic and social views will alienate minorities and women. He's incapable of building a winning coalition. This nation needs another Bush like it needs a hole in it's head but after Christie Jeb would be the only other viable candidate, though a long shot to beat a tough Dem opponent. Rubio is a rookie and too inexperienced and hasn't show the political ability to build a winning coalition, not at the national level. Condeleza Rice, who has shown no inclination to run for public office, has never ran a campaign for elective office and has the immoral war in Iraq hanging over her head like a lead anchor. Not a chance of her winning.

Democrats have more interesting possibilities. Hilliary Clinton would be the obvious front runner if she chose to run and would probably win if anyone but Christie is nominated by the Republicans. Joe Biden comes in close second as a sitting Veep for getting the nomination but the track record of Veeps/Senators running for the top job hasn't been steeler with a few notable exceptions. Then there's Joes ability to put his foot in his mouth. My personal favorite is John Warner. Like Christie he's a crossover politician who appeals to moderate of both stripes and has a steller public/private career. He's also a dynamic personality. Andrew Cuomo is more of a dark horse candidate but is one of the more popular governors in the nation.

If Hilliary does run then my guess is that the race would be between her and Chris Christie. The question then would be could Christie win the nomination with out destroying his national election possibilities like Romney did with the incessantly long GOP primary that forced him to move way to far to the right.
Click to expand...

Great a analysis, and now is a great time to be talking about this. Later all discussion will be closed by emotion, more than it already is. For Christie to have a chance, I believe two things must happen soon, 1) he must run to the right and 2) he musl lose some weight while running. Otherwise the R's will nominate their third Bush!

It seems to me Clinton has her nomination in the bag unless something unforeseen happens. I never said that in o8'. I can't see Christie or Bush beating her. Don't forget what a great asset Bill is to a presidental contender. One could say he sealed the deal for Obama's reelection.
 
Jarod said:
Great a analysis, and now is a great time to be talking about this. Later all discussion will be closed by emotion, more than it already is. For Christie to have a chance, I believe two things must happen soon, 1) he must run to the right and 2) he musl lose some weight while running. Otherwise the R's will nominate their third Bush!

It seems to me Clinton has her nomination in the bag unless something unforeseen happens. I never said that in o8'. I can't see Christie or Bush beating her. Don't forget what a great asset Bill is to a presidental contender. One could say he sealed the deal for Obama's reelection.
Click to expand...

you almost quoted part of my post verbatim - and yes, bill is a great fund raiser and serious asset to the dims as will obama be

also, the economy is slowly recovering even in the face of the repugs efforts to prevent it
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Because for all practical purposes considering the resources it takes to mount a natonal campaign the nomination process will begin in early 2014. That's only 7 months from now. Not 2.5 years!
Click to expand...

You cannot reliably tell where things are going BEFORE the big midterm Mott. That's going to be a good indicator of how the nominations will go. Prior too, all you're doing is pissing in the wind (a long standing Ohio past time).
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's why I think Christie throwing his hat in the ring fairly soon is critical. I think he has the ability to save the Republican party from that bubbazation that has marginalized it. Hardcore wingnuts in the south won't like it but they didn't like Romney either. If Christie can win the nomination while eschewing the southern strategy and its institutionalized bigotry and it's reactionary foreign policy then I'd have to give serious consideration to voting for him as he is not a right wing ideologue with a penchant for making stupid decision like the Shrub was. He's proven he's capable and that he'd govern in the peoples interest and not the party.

I have reservations about Christie and Hilliary. Christie is a perambulating coronary by pass operation and Hilliary is getting long in the tooth. If she were to win she's be 68 pushing 69. I still remember how his age affected Reagans administration. He was game for his first six years but his last two years was a case of "The lights are on but nobody's home" as he was all ready significantly impacted by senile dementia. To state the obvious the Presidency is a fairly tough job for a septagenarian.
Click to expand...

Only the last two years? Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top