• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Democratic Candidates for POTUS, 2016 edition

jhmd2000 said:
I understand what you are saying, but I am casting my doubts on the "if" part.

I don't know that I agree with your point even assuming your premise. Didn't Indiana have a blue governor and Senator in Bayh? Isn't it generally a swing state (visions of Tim Russert/Chuck Todd zooming in on the Gary precincts spring to mind).
Click to expand...

It has had Dem governors. But it has gone blue for presidential elections only twice in anything you could call recent: 1964 and 2008. Both fairly unique years in presidential politics.

ETA: It has gone red every election since 1940, excluding 64 and 08.
 
Last edited:
Ball State Deac said:
"Easily" seems like a reach.
Click to expand...

Yes...because it would be next to impossible for him to gain nomination by either party. I could see him winning big in a general but he could never be nominated by either party IMO. Goes to show you how fucked up out two party system is.
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
Yes...because it would be next to impossible for him to gain nomination by either party. I could see him winning big in a general but he could never be nominated by either party IMO. Goes to show you how fucked up out two party system is.
Click to expand...

Not sure I see him winning big in a general either.
 
Agreed. Bloomberg doesn't quite fit with the mood right now. Neither do other candidates but an old rich guy with f you money who is pro Wall Street, anti-gun, and galvanized his constituents enough to vote in an über-liberal to replace him.
 
The person that could win "big," which is relative given the modern political landscape, is already running. And her name is Hillary Clinton.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Has there ever been a divorced president?
Click to expand...

bmoneydeac said:
Reagan
Click to expand...

John Tyler got remarried while President, but his first wife had died while he was in office. Woodrow Wilson got remarried after his wife died in office as well, I believe.

And James Buchanan never married, but there's a ton of indications that he was gay and had a long relationship with William King, who was from near Fayetteville actually and served briefly as Vice President under President Pierce.
 
vadimivich said:
John Tyler got remarried while President, but his first wife had died while he was in office. Woodrow Wilson got remarried after his wife died in office as well, I believe.

And James Buchanan never married, but there's a ton of indications that he was gay and had a long relationship with William King, who was from near Fayetteville actually and served briefly as Vice President under President Pierce.
Click to expand...

So you're saying Hillary won't be our 1st LGBT President.
 
PhDeac said:
Look at the polls. Hillary is the only candidate in the race or potentially in the race who doesn't have a higher unfavorable than favorable. Unless you think the GOP primary is going to make any of your side more likable, you should be concerned.
Click to expand...

I trust Hillary to be Hillary. The Palace Guards in the media will try their best, but her personality will test their mettle.
 
November 2007:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/102799/clinton-sustains-huge-lead-democratic-nomination-race.aspx

Clinton with a 27% lead over Obama in the polls. The problem with polls is that they aren't necessarily projectable a year out. They show a snap shot and people like to turn them into future videos. Polls are a moment in time. I think Hillary loses in the primary personally. Could be wrong, but I have yet to find a Democrat outside of my grandmother who is in love with her. Every democrat I know is basically holding their nose to vote for her. I don't think that is the kind of candidate that wins primary much less an election. I don't care how much money or political clout you have.

Is there a single person on this board that is excited to vote for Hillary as a candidate? The only thing that seems to be exciting about Hillary is that Democrats think she can win, but that is a pretty terrible reason to elect the leader of the free world. Hillary may very well win, I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable projecting anything at this point, but the inevitability angle is extremely flawed, and should be recognized since she was inevitable the last time she ran for President and was handily defeated by a first term senator. She now has more baggage, and I don't think she has gained any useful positives that she could point to over the past 8 years. She basically just has to play more defense. If I were a Democrat I would be worried that outside of Hillary, which no one seems to really like, that we don't seem to have a strong stable of contenders.

Republicans are a mess right now, and my boi Chris Christie is stumbling all over the place (and has probably killed his chances unfortunately), but Hillary is a punching bag if the Democrats actually have a serious primary and not a coronation.
 
I think Hilary Clinton is the worst candidate running for President on either side of the spectrum, with the exception of everyone else running for President.

I am not a big fan of hers, but I a) think she will put together a staff that will competently run the country and b) am less concerned about her than I am about any of the other nutbags who are potentially thinking about running. If she was in a general election against 2000 John McCain, I would most likely vote for McCain. But if you think I am going to vote for Martin O'Malley, a socialist, or any of the fuck-ups on the R side of things, you are out of your mind.
 
Anything and as we all know can and will happen. Do I want HRC? No, but I can't think of a better alternative within either party (at least anyone that is running). Everyone running on both sides has baggage of one kind or another whether its little to no experience (tea partiers), a last name of Bush & the fact that he hasn't been in office since 02, whackiness (Paul), and skirting of rules (HRC). As Rube has said, the only hope for Pubs is the server and they'll never see that if it even exists anymore.

The main issue is HRC will start with 247 electoral votes. Win VA (probable), NV (probable), and Iowa (probable) and its over. She doesn't even have to have FL & OH, although she may get 1 or both.
 
DeacWatcher said:
Anything and as we all know can and will happen. Do I want HRC? No, but I can't think of a better alternative within either party (at least anyone that is running). Everyone running on both sides has baggage of one kind or another whether its little to no experience (tea partiers), a last name of Bush & the fact that he hasn't been in office since 02, whackiness (Paul), and skirting of rules (HRC). As Rube has said, the only hope for Pubs is the server and they'll never see that if it even exists anymore.

The main issue is HRC will start with 247 electoral votes. Win VA (probable), NV (probable), and Iowa (probable) and its over. She doesn't even have to have FL & OH, although she may get 1 or both.
Click to expand...

If she wins NH, IA, NV & CO, she can lose FL, VA & OH and still win. The Pub nominee will probably need at least a 2 point popular vote win to overcome the EC. With Kasich running so far behind, I think the Pub who could make for the most interesting race with the best shot of winning is Paul. And he's prolly the least scary of the Pub candidates from my perspective, mostly because he ain't anything close to being a neocon. But I'd be extremely surprised if he can get the nomination.
 
vadimivich said:
John Tyler got remarried while President, but his first wife had died while he was in office. Woodrow Wilson got remarried after his wife died in office as well, I believe.

And James Buchanan never married, but there's a ton of indications that he was gay and had a long relationship with William King, who was from near Fayetteville actually and served briefly as Vice President under President Pierce.
Click to expand...

YEAH HE DID
 
jhmd2000 said:
I trust Hillary to be Hillary. The Palace Guards in the media will try their best, but her personality will test their mettle.
Click to expand...

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't after you.
 
Wrangor said:
November 2007:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/102799/clinton-sustains-huge-lead-democratic-nomination-race.aspx

Clinton with a 27% lead over Obama in the polls. The problem with polls is that they aren't necessarily projectable a year out. They show a snap shot and people like to turn them into future videos. Polls are a moment in time. I think Hillary loses in the primary personally. Could be wrong, but I have yet to find a Democrat outside of my grandmother who is in love with her. Every democrat I know is basically holding their nose to vote for her. I don't think that is the kind of candidate that wins primary much less an election. I don't care how much money or political clout you have.

Is there a single person on this board that is excited to vote for Hillary as a candidate? The only thing that seems to be exciting about Hillary is that Democrats think she can win, but that is a pretty terrible reason to elect the leader of the free world. Hillary may very well win, I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable projecting anything at this point, but the inevitability angle is extremely flawed, and should be recognized since she was inevitable the last time she ran for President and was handily defeated by a first term senator. She now has more baggage, and I don't think she has gained any useful positives that she could point to over the past 8 years. She basically just has to play more defense. If I were a Democrat I would be worried that outside of Hillary, which no one seems to really like, that we don't seem to have a strong stable of contenders.

Republicans are a mess right now, and my boi Chris Christie is stumbling all over the place (and has probably killed his chances unfortunately), but Hillary is a punching bag if the Democrats actually have a serious primary and not a coronation.
Click to expand...

Wrangor's early 2016 predictions:


Hillary won't be the Democrat nominee.

Christie will be the Republican nominee (at least, he thought so until starting to back off with this quoted post).



Wrangor has got some mammoth balls.
 
At least he isn't afraid to voice his opinions. We never have any idea what you think about a topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top