Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

I'd assume Clinton would go for an old, very likely white, male. Clinton/Clinton?

[mainiac]

Clinton/Gore.  Second time's the charm.

[Lord Shonus]

I'd assume Clinton would go for an old, very likely white, male. Clinton/Clinton?

Unlikely that old, white, and male would be particularly useful to her. She covers the old and white herself, and I don't think anyone that would have a problem voting for a woman would have less of one if her VP candidate was male. If anything, her running mate is likely to be as young as possible, to deflect concerns about her age (remember how big a deal McCain's age was in his campaign?), and will likely shore up a weak point in her appeal, which Warren is unlikely to do on a large scale. At this point, it's too early to call what the weak point in her campaign is going to be, as much depends on the political climate of the next 13 or 14 months.

[Rez]

I was wondering if anyone else was thinking about pointing out that Hillary and Biden are both ancient.  Biden seems, as Archer would say, like a slow Loris who gets tuckered out attending functions.  IIRC, Hillary had some serious health problems in '13.  If Hillary got elected, she might very well bring Kerry back, depends on who she needs to make nice with.  Either way, I bet we'd see virtually the same people in the White House, even if a few official names changed.

[RedKing]

Villaraigosa, maybe? Get a somewhat younger Hispanic guy in there, especially if Marco Rubio winds up on the Rep ticket somehow.

Courting the Latino vote could be a huge part of the 2016 election, for both sides. Democrats have an inherent advantage (and a lot of the GOP seems determined to further entrench that advantage by derping double down on the immigration issue) but they also have inroads on social issues, where Latino communities tend to be rather conservative.

[FearfulJesuit]

Villaraigosa, maybe? Get a somewhat younger Hispanic guy in there, especially if Marco Rubio winds up on the Rep ticket somehow.

Courting the Latino vote could be a huge part of the 2016 election, for both sides. Democrats have an inherent advantage (and a lot of the GOP seems determined to further entrench that advantage by derping double down on the immigration issue) but they also have inroads on social issues, where Latino communities tend to be rather conservative.

I remember reading an Economist editorial a while back where the author postulated that as the Democrats and Republicans start splitting more and more by race, and the Republicans start becoming more comfortable with not being completely socially backwards, we may see a slow shift back to the system that dominated prior to the '60s: one party that's socially conservative but fiscally liberal (the Democrats), and one that's socially liberal but fiscally conservative (the Republicans).

(There's one segment of the Democratic voting base that won't like this very much: college-educated liberal whites. However, within ten or twenty years they'll start entering the country's economically dominant age range en masse, and as someone who knows a lot of these people, race and gender are way more important to them than class is. If the GOP can somehow be persuaded to ditch its anti-science streak, college-educated liberal whites are going to be much more reachable.)

[RedKing]

I would almost see the Democrats as the socially liberal, fiscal conservative party. "Centrist" dems have been fiscally conservative for forever.

While the Republicans seem to be abandoning their pursuit of small government in an effort to shore up power and execute culture war type shenanigans. Especially here in North Carolina, where the number of new commissions and agencies being created is at an all time high under the GOP, most of it to get around rules and roadblocks in place to prevent the kind of abuses they're fond of.

[FearfulJesuit]

I would almost see the Democrats as the socially liberal, fiscal conservative party. "Centrist" dems have been fiscally conservative for forever.

While the Republicans seem to be abandoning their pursuit of small government in an effort to shore up power and execute culture war type shenanigans. Especially here in North Carolina, where the number of new commissions and agencies being created is at an all time high under the GOP, most of it to get around rules and roadblocks in place to prevent the kind of abuses they're fond of.

Depends on how you define "socially conservative," is the thing. There's no rule that says that the most progressive party on racial issues also has to be the one that's more permissive about abortion.

(Abortion actually seems to be somewhat detached from the left-right spectrum in general. American liberals coo over Argentina, for example, which is highly economically left-wing and one of the best places in the world to live if you're LGBT...but Argentina doesn't allow abortion except in very exceptional circumstances. On the other hand, you have Russia, where government-sanctioned skinheads roam around looking for gay teens to beat up, but which has abortion on demand.)

[smjjames]

I was wondering if anyone else was thinking about pointing out that Hillary and Biden are both ancient.  Biden seems, as Archer would say, like a slow Loris who gets tuckered out attending functions.  IIRC, Hillary had some serious health problems in '13.  If Hillary got elected, she might very well bring Kerry back, depends on who she needs to make nice with.  Either way, I bet we'd see virtually the same people in the White House, even if a few official names changed.

I've repeatedly mentioned that Hillary is getting up there in age. Haven't even thought of Bidens age, probably because I don't think he is a likely nominee.

[alway]

Meanwhile, Rand Paul continues to prove just how stupid he is:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/rand-paul-vaccines-can-lead-mental-disorders-n298821

And Chris Christie pandering to anti-vaxxers as well:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/chris-christie-clarifies-vaccine-remarks-n298386

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Dutchling]

I was under the impression Chris^2 is just saying that because his state in general in anti-vax, not because he is a nutter himself.

And yes, I mean I read this somewhere on the internet, and yes, that means it is true.

[Zangi]

So Christie is shifting to the right to appeal to conservatives during the primaries... Just like Romney did in the last election cycle?

[FearfulJesuit]

Well, damn. After his remarks about global warming after Sandy, here I was hoping Christie might herald a new era of Republicans with at least some respect for science. Seems I was too optimistic...

[RedKing]

I halfway want someone to rig up a large black obelisk to rise out of the floor at the first Republican debate, just to see which candidates throw rocks at it in fear, and which one will eventually lift up a bone. And then club his opponents to death with it.