• 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

Nate Silver posted an article this week puncturing the concept of a "blue wall" of Democrat electoral votes being in the bag. An interesting read.
 
deacvision7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

My Christie prediction shows how early predictions are a dumb bet :). Any sane bet would be placed in Hillary, but you would have said the same thing in November of 2007, and I picked Obama to win that the Democratic ticket in 2006. Politics is crazy. Following the polls a year out doesn't really do a whole lot for you. Following the the polls a month out is very wise, but living and dying by the polls right now is sticking your finger in the air to see if a Hurricane is coming in August. It is pretty pointless.

I am still not without hope on Christie either, although his campaign has taken several major hits lately. It all comes down to the debates with him anyway, and I have always thought that. If he puts his name in the hat, and brings it at the debates he could turn his entire momentum around (insert fat joke). To be honest, I am not sure he is going to run with how poorly it has gone in the last 6 months. I guess we will see. My heart is with the fat guy though, so hopefully he can bring his platform to the national stage and get his fair shot. Right now he seems to just be covered up taking punch after punch against the ropes. Until he announces he won't be able to establish his own dialogue with the country.
 
Last edited:
DeacLaw05 said:
Nate Silver posted an article this week puncturing the concept of a "blue wall" of Democrat electoral votes being in the bag. An interesting read.
Click to expand...

The crux of his argument was that a weaker red wall didn't hold up in a three man election under a different demographic backdrop. It was a weak argument. 538 has fallen off since the move to ESPN.
 
My observation is that the Democrats have been successful in the post-Reagan era when they've run a youthful, charismatic candidate. In terms of charisma, is Hillary closer to Bill and Obama? Or is she closer to Gore and Kerry? That is what would scare me about handing her the nomination if I were a Democrat--whatever qualities she has, charisma is not one of them.
 
Its interesting that 'pubs big arguments against Clinton are not why particular 'pub candidates would be good Presidents, but why she won't get votes.

As much crap is lobbed her way with respect to "why aren't democrats excited to vote for Hilary!" you'd think there would be more people on here touting why Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, or Scott Walker would, you know, actually be a good President (Wrangor and his man-crush on Gov. Christie excluded, of course).
 
DeaconSig said:
Its interesting that 'pubs big arguments against Clinton are not why particular 'pub candidates would be good Presidents, but why she won't get votes.

As much crap is lobbed her way with respect to "why aren't democrats excited to vote for Hilary!" you'd think there would be more people on here touting why Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, or Scott Walker would, you know, actually be a good President (Wrangor and his man-crush on Gov. Christie excluded, of course).
Click to expand...

NTTAWWT
 
The election is going to be all about Obama and Hillary if republicans have their way and that is a risky strategy.
 
DeacLaw05 said:
My observation is that the Democrats have been successful in the post-Reagan era when they've run a youthful, charismatic candidate. In terms of charisma, is Hillary closer to Bill and Obama? Or is she closer to Gore and Kerry? That is what would scare me about handing her the nomination if I were a Democrat--whatever qualities she has, charisma is not one of them.
Click to expand...

BSD batsignal...
 
For me it is because I'm not sure who I'll be backing yet. If I had to pick today, I'd probably go with Rubio. I like that he was effective as the speaker of the Florida House in brokering compromise legislation, and I think he's generally on the right track on the immigration issue. I have done a lot of work in my area with conservative Hispanics on political issues, and I don't share the view that Hispanics are destined to be another immovable Democrat bloc in the way the larger African American community has become.

One of the things I admired most about Reagan was that he was willing and able to advance his agenda incrementally--he was willing to give a little to get more, and I think Rubio might be most likely to govern in that way. It's a long time until the NC primary, though, and I'm willing to listen to what they all have to say (and we'll see who's left by then to choose from).
 
Weird thing is that the RNC has a pretty good handle on why they lost in 2012 (immigration, social issues, younger voters), but they're still unwilling/unable to implement more centrist policies and recruit better candidates. They'd be much better off focusing on things that can move the party forward in the future rather than focusing on Obama and the Clintons. Supreme Court will do the GOP a huge favor by taking LGBT issues largely off the table, but GOP still have to modernize their agenda.
 
jhmd2000 said:
BSD batsignal...
Click to expand...


ed_2175158b.jpg
 
BSD is generally one of my favorite posters and when I met him in real life I really liked him. But I can't help but think less of him every time I am reminded of his love of Edwards.
 
PhDeac said:
The election is going to be all about Obama and Hillary if republicans have their way and that is a risky strategy.
Click to expand...

If the economy tanks over the next year and a half, then the Pubs prolly win with that message and keep the Senate. If there is no serious crisis, scandal or economic downturn, then that's a bad strategy. The 1 Pub with a somewhat unique message I'll say again is Paul, and he's the guy who could make this real interesting without an intervening scandal or downturn.
 
DeaconSig said:
That hair is fucking beautiful, though.
Click to expand...

God I hated Edwards. He was as big a phony and remade himself over as much as Romney did (and they prolly shared the same $400per hair stylist). He had 1 of the most conservative voting records of any Dem in the Senate and then ran for Prez as a populist friend of poor people.
 
DeacLaw05 said:
My observation is that the Democrats have been successful in the post-Reagan era when they've run a youthful, charismatic candidate. In terms of charisma, is Hillary closer to Bill and Obama? Or is she closer to Gore and Kerry? That is what would scare me about handing her the nomination if I were a Democrat--whatever qualities she has, charisma is not one of them.
Click to expand...

Post Reagan? There have been 5 Dem candidates post Reagan. Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama.

Pretty small sample size.
 
deacvision7 said:
Post Reagan? There have been 5 Dem candidates post Reagan. Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama.

Pretty small sample size.
Click to expand...

That correlates with the time frame from the Silver article when there was a noticeable shift in certain states between red and blue (in 1992) that has been fairly consistent since then. That was why I specifically mentioned those candidates. I also consider GHWB as essentially Reagan's third term, which is why I included '88 as "Reagan Era."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top