The "Who is running?" tea leaves thread (Part 2)

[IceSpear]

Uh oh, Hillary!!!

Lincoln Chaffee considering a run.

End Game.

LOL! Move over Jim Webb!

Will former Republican Lincoln Chafee replace former Republican Jim Webb as the Atlas Forum's progressive savior?

Nah, most of you will defer to former Republican Hillary Clinton anyway.

Quite a big difference between being a Republican in the 2000s and being a Republican in the 1960s.

And besides, Hillary is not considered a "progressive savior" here. In fact, I even recall people here attacking her for being a Republican in the 60s. So either way you slice it the comparison falls flat.

[IceSpear]

Uh oh, Hillary!!!

Lincoln Chaffee considering a run.

End Game.

LOL! Move over Jim Webb!

Will former Republican Lincoln Chafee replace former Republican Jim Webb as the Atlas Forum's progressive savior?

Nah, most of you will defer to former Republican Hillary Clinton anyway.

Quite a big difference between being a Republican in the 2000s and being a Republican in the 1960s.

And besides, Hillary is not considered a "progressive savior" here. In fact, I even recall people here attacking her for being a Republican in the 60s. So either way you slice it the comparison falls flat.

Elizabeth Warren was a Republican up until the 1990s, yet her "progressive" credentials are well established and you would surely acknowledge her as one too Or, am I wrong and she's too close to Chafee and Webb on the timeline? Does it really matter how much time has passed since your views have changed if your views have changed? This isn't something I need to explain.

Except, again, nobody touts Hillary as a "progressive savior" and she has gotten attacked on here for being a Republican in the 60s. It's just yet another double standard that I love to point out.

[IceSpear]

Uh oh, Hillary!!!

Lincoln Chaffee considering a run.

End Game.

LOL! Move over Jim Webb!

Will former Republican Lincoln Chafee replace former Republican Jim Webb as the Atlas Forum's progressive savior?

Nah, most of you will defer to former Republican Hillary Clinton anyway.

Quite a big difference between being a Republican in the 2000s and being a Republican in the 1960s.

And besides, Hillary is not considered a "progressive savior" here. In fact, I even recall people here attacking her for being a Republican in the 60s. So either way you slice it the comparison falls flat.

Elizabeth Warren was a Republican up until the 1990s, yet her "progressive" credentials are well established and you would surely acknowledge her as one too Or, am I wrong and she's too close to Chafee and Webb on the timeline? Does it really matter how much time has passed since your views have changed if your views have changed? This isn't something I need to explain.

Except, again, nobody touts Hillary as a "progressive savior" and she has gotten attacked on here for being a Republican in the 60s. It's just yet another double standard that I love to point out.

The people who attack her for that are being silly, but to me it reeks of desperation that you'd bring up something that trivial to defend your preferred candidate. Never mind the fact that Clinton enthusiastically supported Barry Goldwater of all candidates and not some random moderate Republican, which seems to be okay with you since it was the '60s. Yet you're still faulting others for this in the Chafee thread, so keep it up if you want to look like a hypocrite, I guess.

LOL, yes, desperation. I'll be sure to bookmark this post for 9 months from now when Webb and Chafee destroy Hillary.

You seem to be missing the point. I don't really give a crap that Chafee and Webb used to be Republicans, at least to the extent where it may have shaped their current views. My initial reply in this thread was clearly tongue in cheek, directed at the people who bash Hillary for every little thing while overlooking every fault of their precious "anti-Hillary" joke candidates. You guys can dish it out but you can't take it.

[IceSpear]

According to Politico, Lindsey's main objective in a potential run would be to stop Paul. He says he'll decide on whether or not to run by late May.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/lindsey-graham-rand-paul-2016-116837.html?ml=po_r

[IceSpear]

My sources tell me that this is one big prank and Hillary is not actually running. I think we should write dozens of columns and conduct dozens of polls to account for this possibility, just to be safe.

[IceSpear]

Cuomo opts out of running himself, so as to endorse Clinton:

http://observer.com/2015/04/cuomo-foregoes-own-bid-wholeheartedly-backs-hillary-clinton-for-president/

Looks like Cuomo will be appearing in many polls soon! Everyone knows that no means yes.

[IceSpear]

He has to realize he has a 0% chance of winning the nomination, right?

Like Pataki cares what the atlas consensus is

I think that's more like the sane consensus.

[IceSpear]

Trump is such a doofus. He's already decided, but the "chances are good"? If he's already decided, the chances are either 0 or 100.

[IceSpear]

Btw, I like how every Gilmore/Ehrlich article Morden ever links to always has 0 comments. lol

[IceSpear]

What's keeping Warren supporters hopeful of a run?

1. Obama originally said he wouldn't run in 2008, and then changed his mind. (Of course, the change of heart came before April 2007 , but whatever)
2. She had to be drafted into the 2012 senate race.
3. Bill Clinton didn't enter the 1992 race until November 1991.

Also mentions that the supporters of Warren realize she doesn't want to run, but hope she will come around to recognizing that this really is her calling through the devoted draft effort.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-warren-fans-who-wont-take-no-for-an-answer/391131/

Edit: Obama actually started reconsidering his decision not to run in October 2006, making point 1 rather moot, as Warren has not begun reconsidering at all:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/22/AR2006102200220.html

She had to be drafted into the Senate race, but she also didn't continually insist she wasn't running a hundred times either. As for point 3, it's not 1992 anymore...

I did find this interesting from that old 2006 article though:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

b-b-b-b-but I thought everyone said Hillary was inevitable and gave Obama a 0% chance!!1!1!!

[IceSpear]

The first dropout of the election cycle: Dennis Michael Lynch lol

At first I thought this was the Atlas guy.

[IceSpear]

I don't get why Santorum is even running again now that Huckabee is in. I guess he's bored and has nothing to lose, or he thinks history will repeat itself even though 2012 was clearly a total fluke.

[IceSpear]

I find it amusing that Webb has been in an exploratory committee for like 8 months. Is he trying to set a record?

[IceSpear]

Why wouldn't she back Sanders? Ideologically it's a no brainer.

But politically it would be a horrible move. She'll either endorse Hillary or nobody.

[IceSpear]

Bush on his upcoming announcement:

http://www.thonline.com/data/elections/caucus2016/article_5d441142-07a9-11e5-948a-cfa659d78419.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

At a certain point this "If I run *nudge nudge, wink wink*" game starts to become a little bit insulting.

The media constantly bitched about Hillary doing that, but lo and behold they're letting Jeb get away with it into the summer...

[IceSpear]

Gilmore:

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/jim-gilmore-2016-elections/2015/06/04/id/648803/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No need to lie Jim, nobody's paying you any mind anyway.