• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The 2016 Presidential Election Thread

Foolmewunz

Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Foolmewunz
Joined
Aug 11, 2006
Messages
41,468
Location
Pattaya, Thailand
Sure, why not? The 2012 race is over. The GOP has conceded that they're in it for the air time and to keep their brand out there without spending too much money, I think. Maybe they can use the next five years to figure out what to do in Congress other than folding their arms collectively across their chests, making duckfaces for their twitter accounts, and shouting "No!" every time anything is proposed.

I'm more interested right now in the intrigues of the Dems. The frontrunners (at the moment) present a problem - e.g. they can't win, IMHO.

Does anyone think Hillary won't go for the job? She's said that Secretary of State is going to be her last public office. And will she have to fight a sitting veep for the job? That never goes real well for the party.

Alternately, if Barack convinces Biden to step down, I think he'd only be doing so to get a successor in line because he certainly doesn't really need any help beating the flavour of the week the GOP throws out there. Does the Obama camp dislike Hillary enough to put in an Emanuel or Bayh or Cuomo? And how do you get Biden to step down? I think we're far past the FDR era when he just changed Veeps because he felt like it.

A little arsenic in his tea? You can't really offer a sitting vice president a posting - there's only one position above the one he's in and it ain't anyone's to offer, in spite of what cynics might say.

I think we'll see in 2012 if the "fix is in" for Hillary, specifically if Bill goes out there and plays serious stalking horse for Obama. Alternately, if he lays back and only gets out there enough to promote his lucrative speaking tours and books deals, I'd say that they've already decided not to go for it. And if that's the case, then the Dems are going to need to boost some of the young blood.

So, Biden will need to step aside either before the 2012 convention or maybe even during his second term. Could Hillary be bought off with that Supreme Court posting she's always dreamed of?

Whatever it comes to, they need to raise someone's game in the next five years because I don't think either Hillary or Biden can beat Jeb Bush. (Might not even be able to beat Rubio or Christie.)

Or do the tea baggers just shut down Washington, finally and we call off all this silliness and wasting of money?
 
Foolmewunz said:
I think we'll see in 2012 if the "fix is in" for Hillary, specifically if Bill goes out there and plays serious stalking horse for Obama. Alternately, if he lays back and only gets out there enough to promote his lucrative speaking tours and books deals, I'd say that they've already decided not to go for it. And if that's the case, then the Dems are going to need to boost some of the young blood.
Click to expand...

Dude, Hillary would be about seventy by the time she finished a term as VP. This is a no-go. I do not see there even being a need to have a VP who is just grooming for POTUS.

There are a few retired generals who would be perfect for the job. They would steal an enormous voting block right out from under the republicons and would be able to tell the GOP candidate that he is full of crap when he starts nattering about what Obama has done to destroy military morale.

Whatever it comes to, they need to raise someone's game in the next five years because I don't think either Hillary or Biden can beat Jeb Bush. (Might not even be able to beat Rubio or Christie.)
Click to expand...

If we give Obama four more years and a 70-D 30 R Senate, he should be able to turn the ecconomy around, which would leave the party of no looking like the party of No Brains when they recommend the idiot policies of the last thirty years as a cure for what problems we still have.

Jeb is still a punk from a family of dishonest sociopaths, Rubio is an extremist and Christie is a loose cannon. Nothing to worry about, if the next administration shows some progress.
 
leftysergeant said:
Dude, Hillary would be about seventy by the time she finished a term as VP. This is a no-go. I do not see there even being a need to have a VP who is just grooming for POTUS.
Click to expand...

As I said in the thread that gave Foolmewunz the impetus to start this one, she'd be 69 years old in 2016 but still a couple of months younger than Reagan when he got elected. Both McCain and Dole would have been several years older than that on inauguration day had they won.

As for Biden, he's 69 now. He'll turn 70 two weeks after election day next year. He could be gently forced into retirement next year with no additional drama, if Obama is desperate to get rid of him and Biden agrees to play ball.
 
I'm not saying there's a "need to" use the Veep post to groom the next candidate, but that it's a great way to take someone up a few notches, particularly if you expect a primary battle from outside your own inner circle.

I think Reagan and McCain got us away from the fear of the old farts. McCain's age wasn't half the issue as Reagan's was in '80. It was mentioned, but not that often. (Now Biden, otoh, would be 74 in 2016 - that's pushing it, but I think that's why they'll try to replace him. It's not like he does anything - Obama would have to get a Constitutional Amendment doing away with the office of vice president to give him any less to do. ;) )


ETA: I see while writing this that Timhau's covered the age question, too.

Aside: Lefty, are you okay? Christie, Rubio and Jeb in one post and not even one of them's a Drongo?
 
timhau said:
As I said in the thread that gave Foolmewunz the impetus to start this one, she'd be 69 years old in 2016 but still a couple of months younger than Reagan when he got elected. Both McCain and Dole would have been several years older than that on inauguration day had they won.

As for Biden, he's 69 now. He'll turn 70 two weeks after election day next year. He could be gently forced into retirement next year with no additional drama, if Obama is desperate to get rid of him and Biden agrees to play ball.
Click to expand...

I agree with your post for the most part. The question with Biden is how they pull it off. If there was a tough election ahead, I'd say he'd be convinced to do the right thing before the election. But with a cakewalk coming, I don't think they want to rupture any semblance of unity while the GOP are at each others' throats. So I'm reckoning he stands for office again and then finds an out in the first year of the second term.
 
I see no reason to get rid of Biden. He isn't going to run in 2016. He'll play the role of party elder.

Hillary isn't going to run either. While she may be the same age as Reagan when he ran, time is tougher on women in general (at least perceived to be tougher) and it was quite kind to Ronnie.
 
I think that part of what destroyed McCain is that people still remembered Reagan's quick slide into unmistakeable dementia. It took some by surprise (although I had concluded that his brain was leaking out his ears in the 1970s.) McCain had a few brain farts and everybody figured he was on his way out the door to fantasy land, too. Then he proved it by grabbing a mindless bit of eye candy for a running mate.

I think people are going to be a little more cautious about a geezer for POTUS for a while.
 
leftysergeant said:
Then he proved it by grabbing a mindless bit of eye candy for a running mate.
Click to expand...


And ironically, that in itself made his age more of an issue than it had been before. Handy tip for would-be future presidential candidates: the more statistically likely you are to die while in office, the less you can afford to choose a frighteningly deranged ignoramus for a running mate. I would love to see figures on the numbers of independents who would have voted for McCain or at least considered it, if not for the roughly 20% (IIRC) chance that his term would have been finished out by President Palin.

(Of course if you had told me at the time that four years later, most of the serious GOP contenders would be at least as frightening, I'd have laughed.)
 
Quinn said:
Handy tip for would-be future presidential candidates: the more statistically likely you are to die while in office, the less you can afford to choose a frighteningly deranged ignoramus for a running mate.
Click to expand...
I wish I had not been munching raw cauliflower when I read that. My sinuses! Pain! Aaargh!

(Of course if you had told me at the time that four years later, most of the serious GOP contenders would be at least as frightening, I'd have laughed.)
Click to expand...

:dl:
 
Warning: I intend to bump this thread a couple of times a year so this is your chance to really embarass yourselves in a couple of years.
(Happily no one remembers my confident prediction that John Kerry was stoking up his war chest and calling in favors before the 2008 elections when he was a surefire lock to be nominated. A week later he disassembled his committees.)
 
And while we're at it.....

Tea Party (tea baggers, drongos, whatever you want to call them).....

The public is turning against them. Obama's approval ratings are up and congress critters are down. And the public is specifically citing the road blocks and lack of cooperation.

Q: Will the Tea Party (in whatever guise) be a factor by 2016 or will the GOP have engulfed them in the big tent.

Discuss.
 
BenBurch said:
I think his brinksmanship is aimed at making his name for 2016.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is a realistic possibility. I can see the 30-second ads now: 7 seconds of him smoking, 8 seconds of him drinking, 7 seconds of him playing golf and a final 8 seconds of him bawling his eyes out. All segments would, of course, feature him at his "Agent Orange" (thanks for the snort, lefty) best. An ad like that would make Rove so happy he'd wet himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom