Most likely Democratic Nominee to succeed President Obama in 2016? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 15, 2024, 03:30:29 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 100% pro-life no matter what)
  Most likely Democratic Nominee to succeed President Obama in 2016? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Most likely Democratic Nominee to succeed President Obama in 2016?  (Read 17054 times)
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

« on: January 01, 2010, 01:04:19 PM »

I'd say New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. BTW, you don't think Hillary is going to run in 2016?
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

« Reply #1 on: January 01, 2010, 01:15:56 PM »


No. His time has passed.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

« Reply #2 on: January 01, 2010, 01:20:46 PM »


I respectfully disagree.  He'll be 62 on election day, which is not too old to run.  He will easily win Southern and Midwestern primaries, and he has a strong record to run on.


I respectfully disagree with you on this topic. I think that Warner's lack of charisma could be a real liability for him and I'm not sure he'd be able (or willing) to raise the huge amounts of money needed nowadays to run a decent nationwide campaign.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

« Reply #3 on: January 01, 2010, 01:57:25 PM »

Hillary is indisputably the most likely Democratic nominee in 2016.  No one in the party has higher approval including Obama.  Her stature and presidential-ityvis higher after this job.  But if Afghanistan turns into Vietnam she could be hurt.  Progressive Democrats will push for a candidate to correct for what may still be viewed a Obama's flaws.  Who knows what their issues will be in 2016 and whether Franken, Feingold or Grayson could fashion that into a winning message.  But identity politics are difficult to overestimate and women will be geared up.  Even if Hillary doesn't run, a woman will end up one of the stronger candidates.

What are the odds (in your opinion) that she'll run in 2016?
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

« Reply #4 on: January 01, 2010, 06:06:32 PM »
« Edited: January 01, 2010, 07:06:22 PM by HawkishDemocrat »

Schweitzer, Cuomo, Beau Biden. Hillary is so 2008.

I think 2016 is a little too early for Beau Biden, since his dad will (probably) get ready to leave the VP slot in 2016 and he will probably ned a little more time to distance himself from his dad's negative qualities (the gaffes, etc.). I agree with you about everything else you said, though.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

« Reply #5 on: January 01, 2010, 10:37:35 PM »

Hillary. She has proven herself to be a team player with Obama, and she will have the most political experience out of the possible candidates most likely.

Will she run, though? As for her being a team player, that's only to improve her image and to possibly further her political ambitions. As for her having the most political experience, I beg to differ. No counting her years as First Lady (where, other than screwing up healthcare reform, she didn't really do much that other First Ladies didn't do), Hillary would have 15 years of experience (8 Senate+8 Sec. of State) in 2016. Meanwhile, Andrew Cuomo (another potential candidate) would have 18 years of experience (4 as Cabinet undersecretary + 4 as Cabinet Secretary + 4 as Attorney General + 6 as Governor), which is more than Hillary's 16 years. Thus your claim about Hillary being the most experienced potential candidate in 2016 is automatically proven false.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2010, 10:48:50 PM »

Hillary. She has proven herself to be a team player with Obama, and she will have the most political experience out of the possible candidates most likely.

Will she run, though? As for her being a team player, that's only to improve her image and to possibly further her political ambitions. As for her having the most political experience, I beg to differ. No counting her years as First Lady (where, other than screwing up healthcare reform, she didn't really do much that other First Ladies didn't do), Hillary would have 15 years of experience (8 Senate+8 Sec. of State) in 2016. Meanwhile, Andrew Cuomo (another potential candidate) would have 18 years of experience (4 as Cabinet undersecretary + 4 as Cabinet Secretary + 4 as Attorney General + 6 as Governor), which is more than Hillary's 16 years. Thus your claim about Hillary being the most experienced potential candidate in 2016 is automatically proven false.

um, lol?

lol about what? Eveyrthing I wrote is perfectly reasonable.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2010, 11:01:32 PM »

Hillary. She has proven herself to be a team player with Obama, and she will have the most political experience out of the possible candidates most likely.

Will she run, though? As for her being a team player, that's only to improve her image and to possibly further her political ambitions. As for her having the most political experience, I beg to differ. No counting her years as First Lady (where, other than screwing up healthcare reform, she didn't really do much that other First Ladies didn't do), Hillary would have 15 years of experience (8 Senate+8 Sec. of State) in 2016. Meanwhile, Andrew Cuomo (another potential candidate) would have 18 years of experience (4 as Cabinet undersecretary + 4 as Cabinet Secretary + 4 as Attorney General + 6 as Governor), which is more than Hillary's 16 years. Thus your claim about Hillary being the most experienced potential candidate in 2016 is automatically proven false.

um, lol?

lol about what? Eveyrthing I wrote is perfectly reasonable.

The idea that experience is somehow measured simply in years of holding ofice. Not to mention, you completly ignored her time as First Lady.

Remind me again how her being first lady gave her political experience? The only non-ceremonial thing she did as First Lady is screw up healthcare reform. BTW, are you messing with me?
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2010, 11:12:05 PM »

Hillary. She has proven herself to be a team player with Obama, and she will have the most political experience out of the possible candidates most likely.

Will she run, though? As for her being a team player, that's only to improve her image and to possibly further her political ambitions. As for her having the most political experience, I beg to differ. No counting her years as First Lady (where, other than screwing up healthcare reform, she didn't really do much that other First Ladies didn't do), Hillary would have 15 years of experience (8 Senate+8 Sec. of State) in 2016. Meanwhile, Andrew Cuomo (another potential candidate) would have 18 years of experience (4 as Cabinet undersecretary + 4 as Cabinet Secretary + 4 as Attorney General + 6 as Governor), which is more than Hillary's 16 years. Thus your claim about Hillary being the most experienced potential candidate in 2016 is automatically proven false.

um, lol?

lol about what? Eveyrthing I wrote is perfectly reasonable.

The idea that experience is somehow measured simply in years of holding ofice. Not to mention, you completly ignored her time as First Lady.

Remind me again how her being first lady gave her political experience? The only non-ceremonial thing she did as First Lady is screw up healthcare reform. BTW, are you messing with me?

LOl. Am I messing withyou? You are messing withthis entire forum.

I'd think being married to the President would give you a bit more insight into how to do the job than would bing Attrone General or Governor of New York.

In that case, go ahead and travel to Michigan, Georgia, California, and Texas and ask Betty Ford, Rosalynn Carter, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, and Laura Bush about how much insight they got on how to do the job of President. Might as well ask Michelel Obama about that while you're on it, if you are ever able to meet her.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2010, 11:22:06 PM »

Hillary. She has proven herself to be a team player with Obama, and she will have the most political experience out of the possible candidates most likely.

Will she run, though? As for her being a team player, that's only to improve her image and to possibly further her political ambitions. As for her having the most political experience, I beg to differ. No counting her years as First Lady (where, other than screwing up healthcare reform, she didn't really do much that other First Ladies didn't do), Hillary would have 15 years of experience (8 Senate+8 Sec. of State) in 2016. Meanwhile, Andrew Cuomo (another potential candidate) would have 18 years of experience (4 as Cabinet undersecretary + 4 as Cabinet Secretary + 4 as Attorney General + 6 as Governor), which is more than Hillary's 16 years. Thus your claim about Hillary being the most experienced potential candidate in 2016 is automatically proven false.

um, lol?

lol about what? Eveyrthing I wrote is perfectly reasonable.

The idea that experience is somehow measured simply in years of holding ofice. Not to mention, you completly ignored her time as First Lady.

Remind me again how her being first lady gave her political experience? The only non-ceremonial thing she did as First Lady is screw up healthcare reform. BTW, are you messing with me?

LOl. Am I messing withyou? You are messing withthis entire forum.

I'd think being married to the President would give you a bit more insight into how to do the job than would bing Attrone General or Governor of New York.

In that case, go ahead and travel to Michigan, Georgia, California, and Texas and ask Betty Ford, Rosalynn Carter, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, and Laura Bush about how much insight they got on how to do the job of President. Might as well ask Michelel Obama about that while you're on it, if you are ever able to meet her.

Certainly more than an undersecretary and or NY AG would, dumbass.

No profanity, please. I don't use profanity when I'm talking to you. By the way, if you don't think being a Cabinet Secretary (not Undersecretary) and being the Governor of the third-largest state in the nation (New York) is not enough experience to be President, than no one would really be qualified for President. Jimmy Carter was Governor of Georgia for only 4 years before he became President and Clinton was governor of Arkansas. Both Georgia and Arkansas are much smaller in population than New York.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2010, 11:31:56 PM »

Hillary. She has proven herself to be a team player with Obama, and she will have the most political experience out of the possible candidates most likely.

Will she run, though? As for her being a team player, that's only to improve her image and to possibly further her political ambitions. As for her having the most political experience, I beg to differ. No counting her years as First Lady (where, other than screwing up healthcare reform, she didn't really do much that other First Ladies didn't do), Hillary would have 15 years of experience (8 Senate+8 Sec. of State) in 2016. Meanwhile, Andrew Cuomo (another potential candidate) would have 18 years of experience (4 as Cabinet undersecretary + 4 as Cabinet Secretary + 4 as Attorney General + 6 as Governor), which is more than Hillary's 16 years. Thus your claim about Hillary being the most experienced potential candidate in 2016 is automatically proven false.

um, lol?

lol about what? Eveyrthing I wrote is perfectly reasonable.

The idea that experience is somehow measured simply in years of holding ofice. Not to mention, you completly ignored her time as First Lady.

Remind me again how her being first lady gave her political experience? The only non-ceremonial thing she did as First Lady is screw up healthcare reform. BTW, are you messing with me?

LOl. Am I messing withyou? You are messing withthis entire forum.

I'd think being married to the President would give you a bit more insight into how to do the job than would bing Attrone General or Governor of New York.

In that case, go ahead and travel to Michigan, Georgia, California, and Texas and ask Betty Ford, Rosalynn Carter, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, and Laura Bush about how much insight they got on how to do the job of President. Might as well ask Michelel Obama about that while you're on it, if you are ever able to meet her.

Certainly more than an undersecretary and or NY AG would, dumbass.

No profanity, please. I don't use profanity when I'm talking to you. By the way, if you don't think being a Cabinet Secretary (not Undersecretary) and being the Governor of the third-largest state in the nation (New York) is not enough experience to be President, than no one would really be qualified for President. Jimmy Carter was Governor of Georgia for only 4 years before he became President and Clinton was governor of Arkansas. Both Georgia and Arkansas are much smaller in population than New York.
And population has what to do with being President?

A country is a pretty large and populous place to manage. Thus it is considered that governors from more populous states would be better able to manage a country since they already have experience managing a very populous area. This is why Spiro Agnew and Sarah Palin were criticized for their gubernatorial experience--because they managed small states and helping the President amange a very poplous country is a very different matter.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

« Reply #11 on: January 02, 2010, 01:37:26 AM »

Hillary. She has proven herself to be a team player with Obama, and she will have the most political experience out of the possible candidates most likely.

Will she run, though? As for her being a team player, that's only to improve her image and to possibly further her political ambitions. As for her having the most political experience, I beg to differ. No counting her years as First Lady (where, other than screwing up healthcare reform, she didn't really do much that other First Ladies didn't do), Hillary would have 15 years of experience (8 Senate+8 Sec. of State) in 2016. Meanwhile, Andrew Cuomo (another potential candidate) would have 18 years of experience (4 as Cabinet undersecretary + 4 as Cabinet Secretary + 4 as Attorney General + 6 as Governor), which is more than Hillary's 16 years. Thus your claim about Hillary being the most experienced potential candidate in 2016 is automatically proven false.

um, lol?

lol about what? Eveyrthing I wrote is perfectly reasonable.

The idea that experience is somehow measured simply in years of holding ofice. Not to mention, you completly ignored her time as First Lady.

Remind me again how her being first lady gave her political experience? The only non-ceremonial thing she did as First Lady is screw up healthcare reform. BTW, are you messing with me?

LOl. Am I messing withyou? You are messing withthis entire forum.

I'd think being married to the President would give you a bit more insight into how to do the job than would bing Attrone General or Governor of New York.

In that case, go ahead and travel to Michigan, Georgia, California, and Texas and ask Betty Ford, Rosalynn Carter, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, and Laura Bush about how much insight they got on how to do the job of President. Might as well ask Michelel Obama about that while you're on it, if you are ever able to meet her.

Certainly more than an undersecretary and or NY AG would, dumbass.

No profanity, please. I don't use profanity when I'm talking to you. By the way, if you don't think being a Cabinet Secretary (not Undersecretary) and being the Governor of the third-largest state in the nation (New York) is not enough experience to be President, than no one would really be qualified for President. Jimmy Carter was Governor of Georgia for only 4 years before he became President and Clinton was governor of Arkansas. Both Georgia and Arkansas are much smaller in population than New York.
And population has what to do with being President?

A country is a pretty large and populous place to manage. Thus it is considered that governors from more populous states would be better able to manage a country since they already have experience managing a very populous area. This is why Spiro Agnew and Sarah Palin were criticized for their gubernatorial experience--because they managed small states and helping the President amange a very poplous country is a very different matter.

Meaningless.

Says you.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

« Reply #12 on: January 02, 2010, 02:17:07 AM »

Hillary will be too old, so I would go with one of the younger stars in the Democratic Party such as Brad Henry.  He's a great governor for Oklahoma, and I'm pretty sure he would at least compete hard for the Democratic Nomination.

Isn't he pro-life, though? That a great thing in my opinion, but I think that if true, this will severely hurt his chances of winning the nomination, as many abortion-obsessed feminists will be afraid that he will overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

« Reply #13 on: January 02, 2010, 02:31:42 AM »


I hope Joe Sestak defeats Arlen "Turncoat" Specter in the Democratic primary in 2010. He'd make a good candidate in 2016 in my opinion.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2010, 04:14:17 PM »

With regards to Hillary.... she really will be 'old news' by 2016, and just old in general. As for her tenure as First Lady, I remember hearing somewhere she didn't even have a security clearance for cabinet meetings.

Of course not. Why would she have security clearance for cabinet meetings? I think that by law, the President is forbidden from bringing his wife to Cabinet meetings since those meetings are those of highest national security and priority and typically contain top secret information that no one else may know about.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2010, 01:43:41 AM »

How about if Hillary doesn't run the democrats run John McCain. XD

lol. No. McCain is finished.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

« Reply #16 on: January 09, 2010, 03:06:32 PM »


Also, Hillary will turn 69 a week before the 2016 election. Not impossible, but I don't see her seeking the presidency then.

I agree with you about Hillary, although Ronald Reagan was 69 when he began his first term in 1981.  Of course, we're talking about different genders, different generations, and different parties.

Reagan was more an exception to the rule than the rule. Besides, he only won because Carter was a massive screw-up (or was percieved that way by most voters). Also, Reagan was senile in his second term. One of his press secretaries later admitted that she was very close to declaring Reagan senile, but decided not to.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

« Reply #17 on: January 09, 2010, 03:12:19 PM »

Does anyone here think Chelsea Clinton is suitable Presidential material? She is going to get married (to some wealthy Jewish guy whose parents were both previously in Congress), which always helps to win an election. In addition, she is going to have large name recognition and many people still remember her father's Preisdency fondly.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

« Reply #18 on: January 09, 2010, 03:51:44 PM »


Also, Hillary will turn 69 a week before the 2016 election. Not impossible, but I don't see her seeking the presidency then.

I agree with you about Hillary, although Ronald Reagan was 69 when he began his first term in 1981.  Of course, we're talking about different genders, different generations, and different parties.

Reagan was more an exception to the rule than the rule. Besides, he only won because Carter was a massive screw-up (or was percieved that way by most voters). Also, Reagan was senile in his second term. One of his press secretaries later admitted that she was very close to declaring Reagan senile, but decided not to.

I think during his second term, especially after the 1986 mid-terms that Reagan started experiencing the early signs of Alzheimers which ended up taking his life in 2004.  He was still mostly functional through most of HW's term, but by the time Clinton took office, he was going down hill.  He wasn't officially diagnosed until 1994, I think, but he had the symptoms for at least 6-8 years prior.

I read that falling off a horse in Mexico in 1989 immedaitely accelerated Reagan's symptoms of Alzheimer's.
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 0.057 seconds with 12 queries.