• 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

If no viable Dem jumps into the race now that party is full of a bunch of wimps. How can you hand her the nomination with all of these questions out there?
 
Warren (to win the nomination at least), Warner, Webb, Rendell, Cuomo, Patrick...just off the top of my head.
 
I think they know they're weak candidates. I've never seen real evidence that Patrick wants to be president.

The Dem bench needs seasoning.
 
As you know, I have never bought the Clinton inevitability argument so I could have a blind spot on this. However, I could see any one of those people (plus a few others) beating Clinton in a primary. All of them (except maybe Warren) would have an uphill climb but it would absolutely be doable. In fact, at this point of the process I would give most of them as good if not better chance than Obama had at this point.
 
Why? What is particularly attractive about them as candidates aside from being NotHillary?
 
PhDeac said:
Why? What is particularly attractive about them as candidates aside from being NotHillary?
Click to expand...


Ya gotta admit being not Hillary is relatively attractive, and at least a reasonable start. So, then comes the need for some desirable and popular positive elements, preferably ones that don't cost too much. Democrats! Feel free to make a list.
 
Good post, bkf.
 
Timing of the release is a huge win for the GOP. Freezes potential Dem entrants and donors. If they were released prior to Labor Day, there would still be time for other Dem options.
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
Warren (to win the nomination at least), Warner, Webb, Rendell, Cuomo, Patrick...just off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

Warren, and I think Gillibrand more than Warren, want to sit this 1 out and don't want to challenge Hillary. I know you're not a female Dem, but I know a lot of female Dems, and many of them would be pissed at another woman trying to take the nomination from Hillary. It wouldn't help either of their futures in the party to run now. And I think Gillibrand in particular has some promise for higher office. Warren, OTOH, has that Northeastern liberal schoolmarm college professor thing going on. I know she has a lot of folks who passionately believe she's the best thing that has happened to the Dem party in recent years, but I just don't think she's that electable on a national level.

I like Warner. He's a fine senator and would be a safe and boring veep candidate. But he's 10 of the most boring human beings to listen to, and I just don't see him running for prez. Add to that the word around here is his wife is pretty introverted and doesn't want any part of a national campaign.

Webb is running. And has zero chance. And while I liked him as a senator, he's a bit of a strange guy who is on his 3rd wife.

If Rendell wants to do something useful, he should run for the senate. That's an important seat that is ripe for the pickings, but the party hasn't fielded a strong candidate. I've never heard that he'd be interested in running for prez.

Not sure if Cuomo has the same skeletons as his dad or not, but he lacks his dad's charm and charisma. That man could give a speech about anything and be interesting. Cuomo the Younger isn't the same heavyweight at this time that his dad was.

What Ph said as to Patrick. And the Dem bench. I had thought Schweitzer was the guy, though he's gotten himself in trouble with some offbeat comments, and he's a friend of Bill's, so he's not going to challenge Hillary. Hopefully, the bench will be stronger in 4-8 years with Gillibrand being the best bet.
 
PhDeac said:
Good post, bkf.
Click to expand...

Not really.

The Republicans "rebounded" from losing to Clinton a lot faster than the Democrats "rebounded" from losing to Reagan. He said both parties were at similar circumstances then said the Democrats did better even though it took them 4 years longer.


Oh, and from what I can tell, Kasich is the Republican's answer to Clinton. He is center-right from what I know about him, which I admit isn't scholarly, so I might be wrong about him.
 
I think bkf explained why the Republicans didn't really "recover" in 2000 and 2004.
 
PhDeac said:
I think bkf explained why the Republicans didn't really "recover" in 2000 and 2004.
Click to expand...

No, he made excuses to try to back his point up. GW Bush got a larger percentage of the vote both the first time he ran and his reelection campaign.

47.9% to 43% and 50.7% to 49.2%. Trying to say that Clinton's two elections showed that Democrats had learned and Bush's two elections (4 years earlier than the supposed Democrat revival took) is meaningless is just a terrible argument to make.
 
Clinton won because Republicans didn't learn.
Bush won because Democrats learned but had inferior candidates.
 
What is the name of the journalist who would actually run deep with a scandal involving Hillary Clinton? 10,000 people in mainstream journalism and nobody bothered to file a public records request for her email? You're not going to find what you're not looking for.

Warts and all, she's their horse. She's the front runner for President of the United States and she hasn't answered a question posed by a reporter in a month.
 
jhmd2000 said:
What is the name of the journalist who would actually run deep with a scandal involving Hillary Clinton? 10,000 people in mainstream journalism and nobody bothered to file a public records request for her email? You're not going to find what you're not looking for.

Warts and all, she's their horse. She's the front runner for President of the United States and she hasn't answered a question posed by a reporter in a month.
Click to expand...

Are you really trying to assert that 100% of all mainstream journalists are liberal supports of Hillary Clinton?
 
jhmd, do you have a link showing that no reporters filed a public records request or that no reporter has attempted to ask her a question in a month?

If there are 10,000 reporters, there are 10,000 people looking to make a name for themselves. One way to do that would be to take down the Clinton legacy.
 
PhDeac said:
jhmd, do you have a link showing that no reporters filed a public records request or that no reporter has attempted to ask her a question in a month?

If there are 10,000 reporters, there are 10,000 people looking to make a name for themselves. One way to do that would be to take down the Clinton legacy.
Click to expand...

Sure. Glad you asked: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ce-hillary-clinton-answered-a-press-question/

Until today, it had been 40,150 minutes since she had answered a question from the press. 27.88 days, to be precise. But yeah, Jeb Bush and Ted Cruze are getting asked about other people's policies from four terms ago. Nobody can seem to find time to sit down with old what's-her-name and ask her about decisions made during her tenure as Sec State (like not signing a S.O.F.A. with a certain Middle Eastern country), as ISIS re-takes Al-Anbar province.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top