Nate Silver gives Clinton 23% odds of losing the nomination (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 11, 2024, 09:22:03 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Nate Silver gives Clinton 23% odds of losing the nomination (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Nate Silver gives Clinton 23% odds of losing the nomination  (Read 3203 times)
Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas
Ray Goldfield
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,919


« on: March 24, 2015, 12:43:39 PM »


People who say things like ^this^ are underestimating the ability of candidates to get in because momentum is building around them rather than vice versa.

Obama was already exploring a run and letting people pull him in. Warren is not. She hates politics and never even wanted to be a Senator as her first choice.
Logged
Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas
Ray Goldfield
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,919


« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2015, 01:25:12 PM »


O'Malley, Biden, Klobuchar, and Gillibrand are all far more likely to be the nominee than Warren, because they're acting like potential candidates looking at a run.
Logged
Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas
Ray Goldfield
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,919


« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2015, 03:33:23 PM »


O'Malley, Biden, Klobuchar, and Gillibrand are all far more likely to be the nominee than Warren, because they're acting like potential candidates looking at a run.

Huh? Klobuchar and Gillibrand have already endorsed Hillary.

And that puts them in a very good position to get her endorsement and network if Clinton drops out.

Warren definitely isn't running against Clinton, and she likely isn't running even if Clinton bows out.
Logged
Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas
Ray Goldfield
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,919


« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2015, 04:19:44 PM »


O'Malley, Biden, Klobuchar, and Gillibrand are all far more likely to be the nominee than Warren, because they're acting like potential candidates looking at a run.

Huh? Klobuchar and Gillibrand have already endorsed Hillary.

And that puts them in a very good position to get her endorsement and network if Clinton drops out.

Warren definitely isn't running against Clinton, and she likely isn't running even if Clinton bows out.

Good point. But what makes you think Warren isn't interested even if Hillary drops out? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but it's possible she just doesn't want to enter as a massive underdog against Hillary.

There's just no indication she is. Everything I've seen on Warren indicates to me that she has the mind of a Washington regulator, not a politician. She was going to get a position in the Obama administration, but it was held up by politics, and that's the only reason the Dems were able to coax her into running for the Senate. Even there, she ran a mostly one-issue campaign, which you can sort of get away with on that level. But not for President.

She doesn't strike me as having the personality to want to run a year-long bare-knuckle brawl where her opinions on foreign policy and domestic issues will be scrutinized constantly. She has an economist's mind, and I think she's far more likely to stay in the Senate and aim for the head of the Banking commission.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 12 queries.