Democrats who really don't want Biden, Clinton or Cuomo to be the nominee. (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 20, 2024, 11:19:25 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
  Democrats who really don't want Biden, Clinton or Cuomo to be the nominee. (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Democrats who really don't want Biden, Clinton or Cuomo to be the nominee.  (Read 3842 times)
Ogre Mage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,508
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -5.22

P
« on: November 16, 2012, 07:54:17 PM »

I wouldn't be so quick to assume Clinton would walk away with the nomination - Similar to 2008, there will be a huge target on her back from the very beginning, and even if she makes it to the General Election, she'll have a lot of battle wounds from the primary. Her best bet at the White House was Romney winning this time.

Ed Rendell and Howard Dean, two former DNC chairmen, said that if Hillary wants the 2016 nomination the Democratic Primary field "goes away."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxHJvD3udOs
Logged
Ogre Mage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,508
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -5.22

P
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2012, 09:05:55 PM »

Hillary Clinton is my #1 choice (I'm not sure there are any other viable female possibilities), but I would kill myself if Biden or Cuomo won the nomination.

Elizabeth Warren
Amy Klobuchar
Kirsten Gillibrand

Yeah, I like all three of them a lot and know they're listed as possibilities. I just don't think they'd have the support to mount a successful national campaign yet.

Well, let's assume that Clinton doesn't run, and one of those three women ends up running in the Democratic primaries against an otherwise all male field?  Don't you think that the one female candidate would get an awful lot of media attention just by virtue of being the only candidate with two X chromosomes.....enough to make her competitive both in polling and fundraising?  I just get the feeling that there's a sense of unfinished business among many female Democratic voters from 2008, about wanting to elect the first female president.  If Clinton doesn't run, then that feeling will be transferred onto whoever else looks remotely viable.


I was a huge fan of Elizabeth Warren running for Senate but I am very skeptical about her as a Presidential candidate, in spite of her high name recognition and massive fundraising ability.  She has a mastery of domestic economic policy, but there were several times during the campaign when it was clear she was political neophyte.  Most notably in her poor handling of the admittedly ridiculous controversy about her heritage.   Perhaps she will rapidly transform into a political virtuoso over the next four years but I doubt it.  It remains to be seen what her Senate committee assignments will be but right now she could not pass the Commander-In-Chief test, a particularly difficult hurdle for a female presidential candidate.  

Kirsten Gillibrand is one of the most effective political messengers in the Democratic party and is also a great fundraiser.  She won reelection with an overwhelming 72%.  Her background in Asian studies and service on the Senate Armed Services Committee suggest she could pass the Commander-In-Chief test.  Furthermore, Gillibrand is a Hillary protege and occupies Clinton's old Senate seat, so there is certain logic in her picking up the mantle if Hillary decides to not run.  The biggest roadblock for Gillibrand's ambitions is Andrew Cuomo's probable interest in 2016.  If he got in that would seriously complicate her chances.

Amy Klobuchar won reelection with an impressive 65%.  The Midwest is a critical swing region and I could see Klobuchar appealing to those voters.  She is funny and personable in public appearances ("I can see Iowa from my front porch.") and her carefully crafted political persona has steered a middle ground between the centrist and liberal wings of the Democratic Party.  Problems:  her speaking style is unexciting (hard to imagine Klobuchar throwing “red meat” to the base) and her national profile is very low.  Lower than Gillibrand’s and way lower than Warren’s.
Logged
Ogre Mage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,508
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -5.22

P
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2012, 11:52:02 PM »

Another problem with Klobuchar I forgot to mention:  her position on internet censorship will probably be unpopular with the base.

Gillibrand has a sharper-elbowed style than Klobuchar.  Klobuchar is, in her own words, not a "spear thrower."  I imagine Klobuchar would play better in Iowa, whose voters prefer their politicians "Iowa nice."  N.H. or especially S.C. would be a different matter.
Logged
Ogre Mage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,508
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -5.22

P
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2012, 02:20:11 AM »
« Edited: November 22, 2012, 02:47:26 AM by Ogre Mage »

I guess no one here like O'Malley or what?

I have a vaguely favorable impression of him.  I think the problem is not dislike but rather a lack of buzz, excitement and interest.  And he certainly did himself no favors on that front with his DNC speech.  Right now Martin O'Malley 2016 feels like a buildup to ... Chris Dodd 2008.
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 0.023 seconds with 11 queries.