• 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

Yep.
 
Would be a good election for a progressive 3rd party. Bloomberg would have a chance in a Hilary/Jeb matchup - he would be viable third option, "get us out of the Clinton/Bush dynasties", focus on the economy. Has been both a pub and democrat champion over the years, and would steal from both parties.

Not sure if there is anyone else out there that fits the mold, but I do think Clinton v. Bush sets up well for a 3rd party, provided it is not a far-left or far-right candidate.
 
I agree, ABC. Although not about Bloomberg. Bloomberg isn't a Clinton or Bush, but I don't think he would fully satisfy a need for something beyond the status quo. In order words, he would be somebody was in a public position of power for a long period of time rather than somebody related to people who were in power for a long period of time. Plus he'll be 74 in 2016.

Not sure if Bloomberg would be the guy himself, but he could definitely use his money to attract somebody and fund the campaign. I don't think there is any viable candidate who isn't connected to either party or an outsider in his/her party who could pull off a switch. I would have said maybe Rand Paul two years ago, but he's gone full Pub.
 
Agreed that Bloomberg is not necessarily ideal. However, I think you need someone with name recognition and money. Lots of money. Bloomberg would be able to say he has political leadership experience, but I hear you - someone younger would probably play better in a Bush v. Clinton scenario. Ironically, if Romney had just stayed in business, or even just never run for POTUS, he would be a viable 3rd Party candidate in 2016 as the moderate candidate he was in Massachusetts. He could point to a very strong economic record, not get bogged down by the GOP Primary BS that caused him to sell his soul to get the nomination, and have a real chance.

Where is the next Ross Perot going to come from? 2016 would be a great year for such a move.
 
Very good point about Romney. There's a strong desire for a president who isn't a rubber stamp or rubber veto stamp for either party. Obama could have stood up to Reid and Pelosi but he didn't. No way would the GOP elect anybody who wasn't on-board with McConnell, Boehner, or the more conservative fringes.
 
Hillary's allegedly hired an outside firm to "reverse vet" her. How does that work and isn't it a little too late? Find it hard to believe the Clintons don't know what's potentially out there already or that somebody has some dirt on them that they've been holding on to it in case Hillary runs.
 
I think that's standard procedure. It doesn't really take the truth to derail a candidate, just spin.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
Hillary's allegedly hired an outside firm to "reverse vet" her. How does that work and isn't it a little too late? Find it hard to believe the Clintons don't know what's potentially out there already or that somebody has some dirt on them that they've been holding on to it in case Hillary runs.
Click to expand...

Probably looking at financial connections to the Clinton Foundation.
 
Right. It will be interesting if we see attacks on donors as a proxy for the candidates.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
Hillary's allegedly hired an outside firm to "reverse vet" her. How does that work and isn't it a little too late? Find it hard to believe the Clintons don't know what's potentially out there already or that somebody has some dirt on them that they've been holding on to it in case Hillary runs.
Click to expand...

screenshot-2014-07-17-19-08-06.png
 
Major story in today's Washington Post about foreign government donations to the Clinton Foundation, even while Hillary was Sec of State. Story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

Seems that at least one of the donations violated her ethics agreement during her State Department tenure. Foreign donations picked up after she left the government. How many of these countries might be expecting a payoff down the road for the donations?
 
There needs to be some framework for this. People with the power and resources to do good things globally shouldn't be stifled because they want to run for president. I'm not sure why a former president shouldn't be able to run a global charity because his wife is expected to run for president. Not sure what the end game is here. Do people want the Clintons to give back donations?
 
Quinnipiac poll of Iowa Democrats shows how tough it will be to breakthrough.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/martin-omalley-iowa-voters-poll-115533.html?hp=l3_4&cmpid=sf

Iowa Democrats don’t seem to be all that enamored with Martin O’Malley, according to a new poll released Thursday.
Among 619 likely caucus-goers surveyed by Quinnipiac University, zero percent responded that they would support the former governor of Maryland in 2016. And only 3 percent say he would be their second choice.
Story Continued Below


O’Malley drew low numbers from Quinnipiac surveys in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida earlier this month, garnering just 2 percent in the Keystone State and only 1 percent in the other two swing states.
Hillary Clinton leads all other potential opponents by a wide margin, with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren coming in second at 19 percent, followed by Vice President Joe Biden at 7 percent, independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders at 5 percent and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb at 2 percent.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/martin-omalley-iowa-voters-poll-115533.html#ixzz3SrsKFD00
 
Deaconblue said:
Major story in today's Washington Post about foreign government donations to the Clinton Foundation, even while Hillary was Sec of State. Story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

Seems that at least one of the donations violated her ethics agreement during her State Department tenure. Foreign donations picked up after she left the government. How many of these countries might be expecting a payoff down the road for the donations?
Click to expand...

I saw this in House of Cards already.
 
Hillary gave a speech for $300K in Silicon Valley the other day. Knowing how out of touch she was during her book tour and knowing that income inequality will be a 2016 issue thought she might have skipped another huge pay day. Thought the same thing when Mitt was building a 12K square foot house shortly after the real estate market cratered the economy. Seems silly to draw additional scrutiny prior to the election.
 
Hillary is not going to be a strong candidate, but she has no reasonable challengers. Actually, none of the potential candidates have come out of the "preseason" any stronger than they were before.

The Democrats desperately need a spoiler. I used to hope for Warren to take on that role, but I'm becoming very comfortable with her doing that from the Senate.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
Hillary gave a speech for $300K in Silicon Valley the other day. Knowing how out of touch she was during her book tour and knowing that income inequality will be a 2016 issue thought she might have skipped another huge pay day. Thought the same thing when Mitt was building a 12K square foot house shortly after the real estate market cratered the economy. Seems silly to draw additional scrutiny prior to the election.
Click to expand...

Skipping a huge payday just to look better for the voters is fucking stupid.
 
Liquid Karma said:
Skipping a huge payday just to look better for the voters is fucking stupid.
Click to expand...

From Silicon Valley at least. Taking money in 2015 isn't as out of touch as spending money in 2011.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top