• 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

deacondamo said:
His Lieutenant Gov was beaten by 5 points (by a nobody Republican) in a state that Obama took by 25 points. Marylanders were sick of his bullshit. He is an uber-tax and spend Dem.
Click to expand...

What damo said. Mayor/Governor Carcetti and his Lieut Gov Brown also did as bad a job setting up MD's health care exchange as the feds did. I would have voted for Hogan too. Carcetti's 1 core belief is that he should hold high political office. Also has a bad temper. Not sure why he is turning down a potential senate seat to try to be Hillary's #2, but you don't want him anywhere near that ticket.
 
Can't imagine Julian Castro hasn't locked down the VP slot regardless of who wins the nomination.
 
Some new details on the email scandal this morning: Hillary didn't just setup a domain and pay a fee for email hosting...she purchased hardware and hosted the damn server from her own house. Based on the date of the domain registration and the self-hosting, this was too thought out and planned just to be a "I didn't any better" type scenario.

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=Fwk8oDHY

The computer server that transmitted and received Hillary Rodham Clinton's emails - on a private account she used exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state - traced back to an Internet service registered to her family's home in Chappaqua, New York, according to Internet records reviewed by The Associated Press.

The highly unusual practice of a Cabinet-level official physically running her own email would have given Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, impressive control over limiting access to her message archives. It also would distinguish Clinton's secretive email practices as far more sophisticated than some politicians, including Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, who were caught conducting official business using free email services operated by Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand how this happens. I've worked with many, many 3-20 person companies that have much better email security and retention policies than our fucking SECRETARY OF STATE, and they are just emailing around housing contracts or receipts/quotes for services.
 
Last edited:
I didn't read far enough...a few months after she left office, she moved off of her own server onto a more normal hosted solution, again indicating that there was a lot of thought put into this entire setup/process:

Then, in July 2013, five months after she resigned as secretary of state, Clinton's private email server was reconfigured again to use a Denver-based commercial email provider, MX Logic, which is now owned by McAfee Inc., a top Internet security company.
Click to expand...
 
Hillary ain't gonna run so this will probably be moot.
 
OK, Romney is also the worst. Good thing he lost and is essentially yesterday's news.
 
WFFaithful said:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-romney-emails-we-werent-supposed
Click to expand...

Yup. Everything that Obama said that his administration would not be, and then went and one-upped past administrations, setting a new bar when it comes to lack of transparency and controlling the press. I don't understand how the same people who were behind Obama because he wasn't part of the party establishment and promised a different kind of government are now 100% behind a Hillary run, but that seems to make up a large segment of my more liberally minded friends right now. If Bush was bad, and Obama was worse, how is Hillary anything but a continued step in the wrong direction?
 
Last edited:
I am not for Hillary. Just for the record.


But I would vote for her over most the the yahoos trying to win the Republican nomination.
 
deacvision7 said:
I am not for Hillary. Just for the record.


But I would vote for her over most the the yahoos trying to win the Republican nomination.
Click to expand...

This describes a lot of Americans.

Somewhat interesting Politico article about what would happen if Hillary doesn't run.

If Douthat is right, and Hillary’s rock-star status is masking deep divisions within her party, then who would donors flock to? As of now, says Lapetina, “there really isn’t any enthusiasm” for the non-Hillary Democrats already flirting with a run—Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb—meaning no one would instantly lay claim to the Clintons’ vast network of donors.
Still, the Democratic bench is hardly shallow. Among other possible candidates who might suddenly find a fire in their belly: Gov. Andrew Cuomo, former Gov. Deval Patrick, former Gov. Brian Schweitzer and Sens. Sanders, Mark Warner and Kirsten Gillibrand. Lapetina believes pressure would build for a few really big names to enter, such as Al Gore.
And then there’s Elizabeth.
If the Democratic establishment doesn’t have a contingency plan drawn up, progressive activists certainly do, and it amounts to the drafting of the reluctant Elizabeth Warren. Would a Warren candidacy spark a pitched battle between the populists and centrists in the party? Not necessarily. MoveOn.org Executive Director Ilya Sheyman, one of the leaders of the Draft Warren movement, believes that rather than “all-out war,” the party would see just a “vigorous, contested primary,” with Warren in the catbird seat. And many big Democratic donors are ideological true believers who would give to Warren in a heartbeat.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...y-clinton-drops-out-115715.html#ixzz3TR44HdRO
 
deacvision7 said:
I am not for Hillary. Just for the record.

But I would vote for her over most the the yahoos trying to win the Republican nomination.
Click to expand...

That's different and fair, IMO. But I fail to understand all of the Hillary support as the nominee. It just doesn't make any sense. Then again, the Pubs are seriously considering another Bush.
 
Probably because government is never going to be transparent and Washington is never going to be an efficient non-partisan machine for the good of the people. Anyone who believed that was what Obama was bringing to the office is an idiot.

But in general the strides in health care, the economy, getting out of overreaching wars abroad, gay rights, and plenty of other things, even when added to the disappointments, are enough to stem the complete dissolution of Democratic support. Shocking, I know.

When you look at the yahoos up for the Republican side you go running back to Hillary real fast, even if you have to hold your nose doing it.
 
RacerDeac said:
That's different and fair, IMO. But I fail to understand all of the Hillary support as the nominee. It just doesn't make any sense. Then again, the Pubs are seriously considering another Bush.
Click to expand...

She's the only presumptive nominee. The rest of the Dem bench are unknowns, even more unknown that Obama was at this stage.
 
I'd campaign for any of Warren, Patrick, Webb, or Gillibrand. Maybe Schweitzer...just so I could wear a bolo tie.
 
RacerDeac said:
Yup. Everything that Obama said that his administration would not be, and then went and one-upped past administrations, setting a new bar when it comes to lack of transparency and controlling the press. I don't understand how the same people who were behind Obama because he wasn't part of the party establishment and promised a different kind of government are now 100% behind a Hillary run, but that seems to make up a large segment of my more liberally minded friends right now. If Bush was bad, and Obama was worse, how is Hillary anything but a continued step in the wrong direction?
Click to expand...

W, Obama, Hillary all enjoy the political status quo
 
PhDeac said:
She's the only presumptive nominee. The rest of the Dem bench are unknowns, even more unknown that Obama was at this stage.
Click to expand...

Agree with the 1st sentence but not the 2nd. The other declareds are jokes. Bernie may be a nice guy, but he's the same as a Kucinich (prolly w/o the hot FLILF) or a Ron Paul running - just trying to broaden the debate and influence an issue or 2 at the convention. Webb was a fine 1 term senator but hardly a rousing speaker and with a bit of an odd marriage - let's face it, no one has ever heard of Webb if former Senator Jethro doesn't call some UVA kid a macaca. Mayor/Governor Carcetti is a northeastern liberal who won't play well in the rest of the country and was so well beloved in MD that they elected a Pub over his hand picked successor. And while I've always kinda liked Joe, and he was responsible for some good stuff in the Senate, he's an elderly gaffe machine. There is no legit candidate in the field other than Hillary.

As for dv7's list, I like Warren too, and it would be good to have someone in there with a consumer orientation, but she also will have that northeastern liberal tag that I think could doom her in between the coasts. Same for Gillibrand. Patrick is a bit too new at the game, and I sadly believe the last 6 years show our country really wasn't ready for a black president. Brian Schweitzer is a great folksy speaker and has some good experience and would play the best between the coasts, but the word on him is the reason he didn't run for the senate was because he had a skeleton or 2 to hide. If that's not true, he'd easily be the best candidate.
 
DCDeac said:
Probably because government is never going to be transparent and Washington is never going to be an efficient non-partisan machine for the good of the people. Anyone who believed that was what Obama was bringing to the office is an idiot.

But in general the strides in health care, the economy, getting out of overreaching wars abroad, gay rights, and plenty of other things, even when added to the disappointments, are enough to stem the complete dissolution of Democratic support. Shocking, I know.

When you look at the yahoos up for the Republican side you go running back to Hillary real fast, even if you have to hold your nose doing it.
Click to expand...

Spot on
 
Agreed. Of course, the Democrats were too scared to run on "strides in health care, the economy, getting out of overreaching wars abroad, gay rights, and plenty of other things" in November. Instead they went with, "Yeah, Obama sucks, but vote for me anyway."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top