Print

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

[Owlbread]

Man, I thought we were past the Kennedy dynasty.

We had dynasties for millennia, why would we get rid of them in 200 years?

[Zangi]

Man, I thought we were past the Kennedy dynasty.

We had dynasties for millennia, why would we get rid of them in 200 years?

Obviously the Kennedy name must be sufficiently slandered before the 'groomed for leadership' dynasty member gets into the political battlefield.

[Mego]

At this rate, they'll be putting up Reagan's corpse for a candidate in 2016, with the chair that Clint Eastwood yelled at as Vice-President. All while issuing confusing demands from their heavily-fortified West Texas bunker. In haiku.

"Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the President must be alive."-Scalia's and Thomas's originalist reasoning overruled by socialist Supreme Court majority. Obama still not US citizen, Reagan 2016, Fox News, Fair and Balanced.

That could be possibly the most interesting thing that's happened in politics in the last few months.

[Leafsnail]

The Democrats don't have a clear leader for 2016, but the Republicans are surely in a worse state.  Romney was definitely the most electable of the bunch they had this time, and he's not looking particularly electable.

[Owlbread]

Perhaps they should have ran someone like Rick Santorum who doesn't have a chance in hell of getting in, then leave Romney for the post Obama/Clinton elections.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I really, really hope Santorum gets the 2016 nomination. Whomever the Democrats nominate wouldn't even have to campaign. They could just sit back and let Santorum destroy his own popularity.

[Owlbread]

I really, really hope Santorum gets the 2016 nomination. Whomever the Democrats nominate wouldn't even have to campaign. They could just sit back and let Santorum destroy his own popularity.

Santorum is one man that I cannot, for the life of me, see any appeal in. Even to his target audience he must appear as a wet blanket.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I really, really hope Santorum gets the 2016 nomination. Whomever the Democrats nominate wouldn't even have to campaign. They could just sit back and let Santorum destroy his own popularity.

Santorum is one man that I cannot, for the life of me, see any appeal in. Even to his target audience he must appear as a wet blanket.

Oh no, the far-right loves him. He's more or less Son of Reagan to them.

Its just that everyone else, even the rest of the right, are able to see how crazy he is.

[mainiac]

All this said, who exactly do the Democrats have right now besides Obama that would be decent in a presidential campaign? Who can they rely on beyond Obama?

Democrats have a pretty deep bench.  Hillary is still a rockstar for one and has become more popular since 2008.  I'd say that she's the most likely person to win the 2016 elections.  The democrats have several governors with good resumes.  Cuomo's name has been bouncing around for a long time.  Ex-Virginia Governor Tim Kaine will have a good resume if he wins his senate run this year.  O'Malley is going to be looking for a job thanks to term limits and has a good resume and no Senate seat to go for so he will almost certainly be in the primaries come 2016.  Schweitzer would look good but would probably get labeled a conservative in the primaries so he'd have a hard time if Obama get's reelected.  Biden has an exploratory committee but I doubt he'd win given his age.  So right there you have five candidates all of whom are experienced and effective politicians and have the resume's to be taken seriously.  Then on top of that you can consider outsider candidates like Elizibeth Warren.  These candidates generally don't have name recognition (except for Hillary Clinton) but that won't be a problem once the Iowa polls start up.  I think it's safe to say that the democrats are going to have a crowded field in 2016, nothing resembling the republican field this year with basically only one decent candidate in Romney.

[GlyphGryph]

Come, now, they had a few decent candidates, but they drove them all off because they didn't want anyone competing with their chosen ones.

[nenjin]

I predict 2016 is going to be all about the Latino-looking candidates.

[Leafsnail]

Come, now, they had a few decent candidates

Such as

[Owlbread]

Do you think Ron Paul's movement will ever really come to anything?

[GlyphGryph]

I thought both Hunstman and Johnson were decent.

[mainiac]

Come, now, they had a few decent candidates, but they drove them all off because they didn't want anyone competing with their chosen ones.

Well I'm assuming you are refering to Pawlenty, Huntsman, Perry and/or Santorum.

Pawlenty had the resume for the job but turned out not to be a good speaker.  That could happen to any unknown candidate so we'll count him and say the republicans had two real candidates.
Huntsman had one term as governor and had spent the past two years out of the country as governor.  Not exactly a high profile.  He was only special because he was different.  He's like Schweitzer but with less experience.
Perry wasn't considered as a candidate this far out.  His name only got floated after the season had started and the field failed to catch on fire.  Perry would be the equivalent to someone like Jerry Brown, someone who isn't considered a likely candidate right now.
Santorum was damaged goods.  He'd lost his Senate seat in a landslide and his name was mostly known at a national level for homophobia, not a winning issue in 2012.

So yeah Romney and less charismatic Romney was the extent of the field.

I thought both Hunstman and Johnson were decent.

I'm sorry but Johnson was not a contender for the republican nomination.  This is made abundantly clear by the fact that in a race where 8 different candidates lead in the polls (Romney, Trump, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Cain, Bachman, Palin, am I forgetting someone?) Johnson never even posted decent numbers.