So, Who's The Democratic Candidate in 2016?

Foolmewunz said:
Name the last Secretary of State who was subsequently POTUS.
Click to expand...

Beaten to it, but like I said, it's just me -- your point is well taken.

As for me, I'm not really impressed by the caliber of work done by past VP's, and I wouldn't vote for Biden, even though I think he's been OK at his job... On the other hand, out of the slate of Republican would-be candidates, I'd prefer Condi to anyone who actually ran this year except for Huntsman or Johnson.

In modern times SecState is simply a more important role (so long as the President remains healthy). I'd also agree that if Hillary choses to run, she'd have a good shot at it, thus reversing the trend. It's a statistical artifact, not a hard and fast rule, I believe.

It's too bad we put such ceremonial emphasis on the VP post. Since we're speaking of history, John Adams had some rather unflattering things to say about it. ;)
 
Last edited:
If Hillary wants it, which is a sizable "if", she walks to the nomination. She's got the name recognition and practically no opposition of any national reputation. If I were Cuomo (or any of the others, frankly) I'd play my cards close to the vest until Hillary flat-out, for the record, once and for all, says she is not a candidate.

If she doesn't want it, it's wide open. Were I a betting man, I'd put a buck on Cuomo, but no more than that.
 
BenBurch said:
Machete.
Click to expand...

As in this guy?

machete-film.jpg


His foreign policies would certainly be interesting to watch play out.:D
 
cwalner said:
James Buchanan*.

Point taken.

*there were a total of 6
Click to expand...

Whenever I see presidential statistics used for predictive purposes, I have to laugh. The sample size (44) is vanishingly small. This particular correlation -- Presidents who were previously Sec of State -- has no causal relationship that I can imagine. How about for you?
 
hgc said:
Whenever I see presidential statistics used for predictive purposes, I have to laugh. The sample size (44) is vanishingly small. This particular correlation -- Presidents who were previously Sec of State -- has no causal relationship that I can imagine. How about for you?
Click to expand...

There have been (counting all the interim Secretaries of State who served for a day or a couple of months) over a hundred of them. If you reverse the question to "How many Secretaries of State served as President", you get your broader statistical sampling. Still a rump survey sample, I'll admit.

But I can "imagine" a causal relationship. "Fall Guy". The Secretary or State has to be the point man(woman) for the Executive Branch's international policies. It takes a real slick individual or a lot of luck to avoid getting tarred with the failures, because the White House is always going to take credit for the wins and throw people under the bus when the doo-doo hits the fan. When it suits their purpose, the occupants of the Oval Office gloss-up the achievements of the SoS.

The recent trend towards "electable" SoS might continue. Arguably, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and Hillary Clinton are in that category. Powell's too old now, but many a Republican thought he'd be the ideal candidate in '08. Condi's still spoken of, 'though I doubt she'll run for anything, and Hillary's simply born to run (and is married to a guy who's just chomping at the bit to manage another run for the big prize).

But for the period from Buchanan (just prior to Lincoln's term in the White House) to 2000, there were largely unelectable and with very few exceptions (FDR and Reagan who stood by their man), the SoS has been changed out fairly often.
 
Foolmewunz said:
There have been (counting all the interim Secretaries of State who served for a day or a couple of months) over a hundred of them. If you reverse the question to "How many Secretaries of State served as President", you get your broader statistical sampling. Still a rump survey sample, I'll admit.

But I can "imagine" a causal relationship. "Fall Guy". The Secretary or State has to be the point man(woman) for the Executive Branch's international policies. It takes a real slick individual or a lot of luck to avoid getting tarred with the failures, because the White House is always going to take credit for the wins and throw people under the bus when the doo-doo hits the fan. When it suits their purpose, the occupants of the Oval Office gloss-up the achievements of the SoS.

The recent trend towards "electable" SoS might continue. Arguably, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and Hillary Clinton are in that category. Powell's too old now, but many a Republican thought he'd be the ideal candidate in '08. Condi's still spoken of, 'though I doubt she'll run for anything, and Hillary's simply born to run (and is married to a guy who's just chomping at the bit to manage another run for the big prize).

But for the period from Buchanan (just prior to Lincoln's term in the White House) to 2000, there were largely unelectable and with very few exceptions (FDR and Reagan who stood by their man), the SoS has been changed out fairly often.
Click to expand...

OK, you can imagine a reason, but it's easy enough to match it against reality. Most importantly, in the case under discussion, it doesn't appear that the fact that she's Sec State has any negative bearing on her electabability at all -- quite the opposite. It seems the predictive power of the Sec State to Pres statistic is zilch in her case. Colin Powell and Condi Rice? Both electable in the prime of their careers. Albright and Kissinger? Both naturalized citizens, so ineligible. And so on.

My point is that you can look at Secretaries of State on case-by-case basis, and form an opinion on electability, based on their individual politics, career and public persona, that's a lot more useful than using that particular statistic.
 
hgc said:
OK, you can imagine a reason, but it's easy enough to match it against reality. Most importantly, in the case under discussion, it doesn't appear that the fact that she's Sec State has any negative bearing on her electabability at all -- quite the opposite. It seems the predictive power of the Sec State to Pres statistic is zilch in her case. Colin Powell and Condi Rice? Both electable in the prime of their careers. Albright and Kissinger? Both naturalized citizens, so ineligible. And so on.

My point is that you can look at Secretaries of State on case-by-case basis, and form an opinion on electability, based on their individual politics, career and public persona, that's a lot more useful than using that particular statistic.
Click to expand...

The issue is that both Foolmewunz and I were addressing R Mackey's claim that SoS made somebody particularly suitable to be POTUS. The fact that no SoS since before the Civil War has subsequently become POTUS challenges that assertion.
 
I don't think Hillary is a shoo-in. The Democrats have a history of picking someone who four years earlier seemed like a long shot. FDR, Kennedy, Dukakis, Carter, Clinton, Obama.

If you want to be president you don't want to be the sitting vice president unless the president is going to die or resign. Only four sitting VPs have been elected president, Jefferson, Adams, van Buren and Bush 41.
 
cwalner said:
The issue is that both Foolmewunz and I were addressing R Mackey's claim that SoS made somebody particularly suitable to be POTUS. The fact that no SoS since before the Civil War has subsequently become POTUS challenges that assertion.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can see that. I would have to say that I agree with R Mackey on that point anyway. It's one of the most high profile positions in government and a very highly respected institution. I think that any politician that may be presidential timber is greatly boosted by holding that job.

One clear reason that so few Secs State have become president is because so many of them are simply not politicians in the elective arena, but rather are career diplomats and academics. And that's an easy causal relationship to see -- non-politicians tend to not be elected president, mostly because they don't run for president. Eisenhower is the major counter-example. Hillary, of course, is not one of that club.
 
Spindrift said:
I don't think Hillary is a shoo-in. The Democrats have a history of picking someone who four years earlier seemed like a long shot. FDR, Kennedy, Dukakis, Carter, Clinton, Obama.

If you want to be president you don't want to be the sitting vice president unless the president is going to die or resign. Only four sitting VPs have been elected president, Jefferson, Adams, van Buren and Bush 41.
Click to expand...

I would count that as only two based on the current electoral process, since both Jefferson and Adams served as VP before we implemented the current process of running as a ticket and awarded the VP to the runner up in the election for POTUS. Also of interest both Van Buren and Bush 41 were one term presidents
 
As a liberal I would like to see Franken as President just to witness the previously unknown shade of red that Bill O'Reilly's face would turn when he is forced to call him President Franken.

I can dream, can't I?
 
Lurker said:
As a liberal I would like to see Franken as President just to witness the previously unknown shade of red that Bill O'Reilly's face would turn when he is forced to call him President Franken.

I can dream, can't I?
Click to expand...

I share your fantasy, but when I return to reality, I like Franken just where he is. He is a bit of a wonk and so probably serves the country much better in Congress than he would in the oval office.

But I agree watching Rush try to cope with a POTUS who once wrote book entitled Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations does have a certain appeal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom