Predict the two tickets (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 01, 2024, 02:42:45 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
  Predict the two tickets (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Predict the two tickets  (Read 4083 times)
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,916
United Kingdom


« on: January 02, 2015, 05:38:39 PM »


Locke provides three distinct advantages that a Clinton ticket lacks. Executive experience (he was a governor), business experience (he was secretary of Commerce) and successful foreign policy experience (ambassador to China). Plus he'd break another glass ceiling as the first Asian American VP. He's old though, and will never be a rock star. Castro is being groomed so I suspect she'll pick him.

As for Rubio being a half wit, while I disagree, it's irrelevant. For God's sake, Joe Biden is our vice president right now. Rubio provides great optics, had foreign policy experience (which, as another poster noted, a two governor ticket lacks) and helps in Florida. But given the opportunity to pick a Mexican American female governor, my bet is Walker goes with Martinez.

1.Executive experience: Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State

2.Business experience: Hillary Clinton was a partner at the Rose Law firm as well as being on the boards of over 10 companies, though her association at some of those companies is not something she seems to like to bring up, just as John Kerry did not ever bring up his successful ownership of a gourmet cookie store likely because of the rather sleazy way he started the company.  (He pretended he was interested in becoming an owner of a major cookie store franchise business, took the business plan and opened his own store).

3."succesful" foreign policy experience.  Hillary Rodham Clinton is often sited by polls as one of the best recent Secretaries of State.

1) I assume by executive they meant-governor. Not that this is much of an issue-people tend to vote for senator/governors it's only congressman who could struggle at the top of the ticket.

2) As you say HRC doesn't need any business links-wall street already love her, and as warren said why do we need people in government who've come straight from business.

3) Eh? What polls? I'd say that Dulles, Marshall and Kissinger were much more effective than Clinton, and actually shaped foreign policy away from the President (in a sense) HRC didn't achieve much as SOS apart from pushing to Libya intervention


Now onto the tickets

Clinton/Castro. Unless something comes in the Vetting or if Hilary has promised it to someone else I can't see it going to anyone else-Castro seems made for it, only concern is his lack of experience tied into Clintons age

Romney/Jindal. Have a hunch that Romney will enter late into the primaries, and win after establishment candiates like Bush and Christie fall
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,916
United Kingdom


« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2015, 12:52:37 PM »


1) I assume by executive they meant-governor. Not that this is much of an issue-people tend to vote for senator/governors it's only congressman who could struggle at the top of the ticket.

2) As you say HRC doesn't need any business links-wall street already love her, and as warren said why do we need people in government who've come straight from business.

3) Eh? What polls? I'd say that Dulles, Marshall and Kissinger were much more effective than Clinton, and actually shaped foreign policy away from the President (in a sense) HRC didn't achieve much as SOS apart from pushing to Libya intervention


I'd say being Secretary of State also counts as executive experience.

Dulles may have been 'effective' he was also one of the most evil people ever in public life, both he and his brother were absolute slime.  Kissinger, though his record is more mixed, is also implicated in mass murder.

Also, a minor point but I did say 'recent' and I didn't mean to include either Dulles or Marshall.

Regarding the polls on Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State.  Here is one, there are likely several more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-remains-popular-for-her-time-as-secretary-of-state-viewed-apart-from-obama/2014/06/07/4bad6e62-ea61-11e3-b98c-72cef4a00499_story.html

or: http://tinyurl.com/nfcc37u

June 8 2014
Hillary Rodham Clinton retains broad public support for her performance as secretary of state, a sign that President Obama’s struggles abroad and Republican attacks over Benghazi have not been a major drag on her reputation.

Clinton left office 1 1 / 2 years ago as the most popular outgoing secretary in recent memory, and 59 percent of the public still approve of her tenure, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll this month. That dipped from 68 percent in late 2012, but 67 percent call her a strong leader in the most recent survey.

I'm aware that both Kissinger and Dulles were complete bastards who could easily be in jail, but that's what happens when you're a cold war secretary of state-if you look at the 50's and 70's that's when the US was doing most effectively around the world.

I'm still skepitcal of Clinton's secretary of state record, she's popular sure but its what 2 years later?
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 0.022 seconds with 10 queries.