Predictions for 2016

[IMPress Polly]

Yep, I know it's super-early and everything, but usually we can tell who the main presidential candidates will be in the next election cycle already by this point. The media sets the narrative pretty early on. Therefore I will make my predictions as to who the main candidates for the 2016 presidential election race will be now and we'll check back in a few more years or so and see if I turned out to be right.

I predict that the following candidates will run:

ON THE REPUBLICAN TICKET

-Chris Christie
-Marco Rubio
-Rand Paul
-Newt Gingrich (again *rolls eyes*)

Between these four candidates, it will be Christie and Rubio who have the greatest chance of becoming their party's official nominee. Christie will run as the more temperate, bi-partisan candidate, while Rubio will be the favorite of the party's extreme right tendencies, and considered credible because he's Latino and a supporter of modest immigration reform. Libertarians will back Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, who, like his father, won't win.

ON THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET

-Joe Biden
-Hillary Clinton
-Julian Castro

Let me clarify: these are the three greatest possibilities in terms of who will run on the Democratic ticket. Not all three of them will necessarily run. I predict, however, that Julian Castro will and that either Biden or Clinton will, one of those two. Probably not both. Between those three candidates, being a little biased, my instinct is to favor Hillary this time around mainly because she has stated that, were she to run, her primary aim would be to improve the plight of women, which is in serious need of improvement in this country. In a context where just this year we have seen the Violence Against Women Act allowed to expire and states allowed to effectively nullify Roe V. Wade by banning abortion outright in what appears to be emerging as a trend, women need someone who will stand up for their rights in the Oval Office. I'm glad that President Obama has taken a number of important steps that benefit women over the years (including introducing a policy that will allow women into combat units this year!), but we need someone who will stand up against a misogynistic culture and misogynistic policies that systematically reduce women to sub-human sex objects and baby-making machines. Sorry if my focus has been disproportionately on this subject of late. I'm just very offended by the manifest direction of our culture and policies on this subject. I think the defense of women's rights and interests needs to be made a top priority at this point. Things are reaching an intolerable level right now.

[Mainecoons]

Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. . . .

[IMPress Polly]

lol, well maybe I'm totally wrong. We'll see. :wink:

[Mainecoons]

No, depressingly, I think you are probably not far off.

It's just the same old, same old on the slippery slope of national decline.

The point about the Titanic is that no matter what you do with the deck chairs (politicians) the ship is still going to sink because it is the ship (the system) that is broken beyond any reasonable expectation of repair.

Notice that the latter is not the same as saying it can't be repaired. I'm saying that it won't be repaired.

[GrassrootsConservative]

while Rubio will be the favorite of the party's extreme right tendencies, and considered credible because he's Latino

More subtle racism from the left.
It's a good thing rational people don't think this way.

[zelmo1234]

I do not think that you are wrong, I think that you hve forgotten Cuomo, might have spelled this wrong NY Gov. I think he will be a player on the Dem side.

And I think that you will see some more of the usuals on the republican side. Pawlente, Jindel, Trump will threaten again!

But I think that there are a few dark horses on each side, that could come forward. If the ecnomey and jobs do not dramatically improve, anyone that has a connection with Obama will have trouble, just as people would not elect a Republican after GWB it will be very hard for a Dem after 8 years of a bad ecnomy.

[Carygrant]

Repetition can be aggravating , but



Michelle, my belle.
These are words that go together well,
My Michelle.

Michelle, my belle.
Sont des mots qui vont très bien ensemble,
Très bien ensemble.

I love you, I love you, I love you.
That's all I want to say.
Until you find our way

[Cigar]

I don't care ... I just want to see another Republican Primary Circus

[Pete7469]

lol, well maybe I'm totally wrong. We'll see. :wink:

You usually are.

Christie is already held in low regard by most conservative. The cocktail circut might like him, at least until he gets to the buffet. Rubio is one of the rising stars, as well as Jindal. I'd prefer Jindal. He has executive experience that senators don't get. Furthermore just being in the senate exposes people to the corrupt lobbist influence. We need an executive that hasn't been manipulated by that society.

Last but not least the democrooks must be defeated if there's any hope for real progress.

[KC]

You usually are.

Christie is already held in low regard by most conservative. The cocktail circut might like him, at least until he gets to the buffet. Rubio is one of the rising stars, as well as Jindal. I'd prefer Jindal. He has executive experience that senators don't get. Furthermore just being in the senate exposes people to the corrupt lobbist influence. We need an executive that hasn't been manipulated by that society.

Last but not least the democrooks must be defeated if there's any hope for real progress.



Polly's got a pretty impressive track record when it comes to predictions. She follows this stuff like a hawk and her record shows it.

I'm not going to argue with her predictions, but depending on the state of the economy in 2016, Republicans will probably go for one of the more conservative options. Christie has a shot of winning the nomination if the Democrats come out of 2016 popular, otherwise it will probably be a conservative or better.

[IMPress Polly]

KC wrote:
Polly's got a pretty impressive track record when it comes to predictions. She follows this stuff stuff like a hawk and her record shows it.

Thank you for you kind words! :smiley:


I'm not going to argue with her predictions, but depending on the state of the economy in 2016, Republicans will probably go for one of the more conservative options. Christie has a shot of winning the nomination if the Democrats come out of 2016 popular, otherwise it will probably be a conservative or better.

I'm not daring to say who will actually win any nomination before we know for sure who the nominees are. I will say this though: when it comes to presidential races, parties rarely nominate one of their most hardline ideological candidates. Usually they wind up going with someone who's deemed broadly palatable for obvious strategic reasons: they want to make winning as easy as possible. Now Marco Rubio may prove an exception to that rule if he should run (and I suspect he will) because he has a unique ability to satisfy most of the GOP's far rightists on the one hand and also possibly regain the party some sort of credibility with Latinos (with whom the Republicans are experiencing steadily increasing problems) on the other. But really, from a strategic standpoint, I'm gonna have to say that Chris Christie would be their wisest possible choice, though it would also be the hardest one for them to swallow. I say that because he offends me the least.

The Republican Party is currently moving away from Tea Party like positions. In fact, Karl Rove and other traditional Reaganite elements have recently declared an all-out factional war on the Tea Party movement, which largely seems in disarray and impotent at this point, as we saw in the tax fight this last December. It's entirely possible they could rebound in a different form by 2015-16, but the economy would have to get significantly worse, not better, between now and then, which I don't foresee happening. Right now, from where I'm standing, it's looking like far right politics are out of fashion in this country and center-left politics are in. Look at the trend in the president's popular approval rating since he won re-election. He's done nothing but campaign for liberal and left wing causes since then and his approval rating has only gone up and up and up during the same period of time. He looks presidential now. He's showing leadership and spine for a change. But like I said, Rubio is a candidate who would stand a good chance, at least in the Republican primaries. So we'll have to wait and see.

[KC]

Thank you for you kind words! :smiley:



I'm not daring to say who will actually win any nomination before we know for sure who the nominees are. I will say this though: when it comes to presidential races, parties rarely nominate one of their most hardline ideological candidates. Usually they wind up going with someone who's deemed broadly palatable for obvious strategic reasons: they want to make winning as easy as possible. Now Marco Rubio may prove an exception to that rule if he should run (and I suspect he will) because he has a unique ability to satisfy most of the GOP's far rightists on the one hand and also possibly regain the party some sort of credibility with Latinos on the other. But really, from a strategic standpoint, I'm gonna have to say that Chris Christie would be their wisest possible choice, though it would also be the hardest one for them to swallow. I say that because he offends me the least.

The Republican Party is currently moving away from Tea Party like positions. In fact, Karl Rove and other traditional Reaganite elements have recently declared an all-out factional war on the Tea Party movement, which largely seems in disarray and impotent at this point, as we saw in the tax fight this last December. It's entirely possible they could rebound in a different form by 2015-16, but the economy would have to get significantly worse, not better, between now and then, which I don't foresee happening. Right now, from where I'm standing, it's looking like far right politics are out of fashion in this country and center-left politics are in. Look at the trend in the president's popular approval rating since he won re-election. He's done nothing but campaign for liberal and left wing causes since then and his approval rating has only gone up and up and up during the same period of time. He looks presidential now. He's showing leadership and spine for a change. But like I said, Rubio is a candidate who would stand a good chance, at least in the Republican primaries. So we'll have to wait and see.

Rubio does have a good shot. Yes, right now the Republican party is going to try and be a little less extreme, but I think it all comes down to the economy. If the economy takes another dive in the coming years, a Conservative Republican might be the ticket. Remember, it wasn't so long ago that Reagan was called too extreme to win, but he did win twice and has had an enduring effect on the GOP. If the economy tanks and the GOP nominates a Christie, they will be making a huge mistake. Otherwise his type will probably be the preference.

[IMPress Polly]

I think we're in agreement that much depends on economic developments. I just don't see those turning for the worse in the near future. Circumstances, however, are not the same today as they were in the 1980s. For example, Romney got just as much of the white vote last year as Reagan did in 1984 when he won his landslide victory, taking 49 states in the electoral vote. Yet Romney lost and not by such a small margin after all, as it turns out (now that we have the final data in). What happened? Minorities, who tend to vote for Democrats, increased significantly as a percentage of the total population. And the Cold War ended (which rendered militarism less popular). And they're actually voting for Democrats by wider margins today than in the past. In other words, the Democratic Party's social base is expanding while that of the Republican Party is contracting. That's why the Republicans have lost the popular vote in five out of the last six election cycles (i.e. almost all since the end of the Cold War). On pain of being reduced to a merely regional party in the long run, they have to find a way of expanding their social base to include more minorities.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Care to comment on your statement about Rubio being considered more credible because he's latino?

[bladimz]

4 years down the political road... How can anyone see that far??

Polly, your success is legendary. I hope that you will offer updates from time to time.

[bladimz]

Care to comment on your statement about Rubio being considered more credible because he's latino?

From the OP:


Between these four candidates, it will be Christie and Rubio who have the greatest chance of becoming their party's official nominee. Christie will run as the more temperate, bi-partisan candidate, while Rubio will be the favorite of the party's extreme right tendencies, and considered credible because he's Latino and a supporter of modest immigration reform. Libertarians will back Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, who, like his father, won't win.She's right. Some might see him as the best choice because of his ethnic background.

She didn't say that he was credible.

[GrassrootsConservative]

She's right. Some might see him as the best choice because of his ethnic background.

She didn't say that he was credible.


while Rubio will be the favorite of the party's extreme right tendencies, and considered credible because he's Latino

It is as I said, genius. I never said she said he "was" credible, only that he would be considered as such.

[bladimz]

More subtle racism from the left.
It's a good thing rational people don't think this way.So you disagree with this accession? You somehow think that his being Latino won't play any part in his positioning as a potential GOP candidate?

Bizarre.

[GrassrootsConservative]

So you disagree with this accession? You somehow think that his being Latino won't play any part in his positioning as a potential GOP candidate?

Bizarre.

I think the left making such a huge deal about it is wrong.
Why even recognize it? Why does his skin being not white make people consider him more credible?

[KC]

I think we're in agreement that much depends on economic developments. I just don't see those turning for the worse in the near future. Circumstances, however, are not the same today as they were in the 1980s. For example, Romney got just as much of the white vote last year as Reagan did in 1984 when he won his landslide victory, taking 49 states in the electoral vote. Yet Romney lost and not by such a small margin after all, as it turns out (now that we have the final data in). What happened? Minorities, who tend to vote for Democrats, increased significantly as a percentage of the total population. And the Cold War ended (which rendered militarism less popular). And they're actually voting for Democrats by wider margins today than in the past. In other words, the Democratic Party's social base is expanding while that of the Republican Party is contracting. That's why the Republicans have lost the popular vote in five out of the last six election cycles (i.e. almost all since the end of the Cold War). On pain of being reduced to a merely regional party in the long run, they have to find a way of expanding their social base to include more minorities.

Yes, militarism is becoming less and less popular, so I actually see an opportunity there. Both parties can be seen as too ready to embrace militarism as a way of solving problems in foreign policy, so having a candidate that is seen as less of an interventionist could help the Republican party I think (I doubt that is a realistic possibility, just wishful thinking).

Demographic changes are a part of it, and certainly the circumstances are different for a number of reasons, but if the economy goes bad, the electorate will punish whoever is seen as to blame. The electorate tends to punish incumbents and/or their parties, so under those circumstances the GOP might be able to count on a higher turnout regardless, and use the opportunity to pick someone who fires up the base.

[bladimz]

I think the left making such a huge deal about it is wrong.
Why even recognize it? Why does his skin being not white make people consider him more credible?
You have to understand that it isn't the color of his skin, it is his (perceived) ethnic connection with a group of people whose support the GOP very dearly wants and needs.

[Mister D]

The GOP will soon engage in racial pandering. Great.

[Mister D]

BTW, Rubio is probably of European descent.

[GrassrootsConservative]

You have to understand that it isn't the color of his skin, it is his (perceived) ethnic connection with a group of people whose support the GOP very dearly wants and needs.

In other words a very fancy way of saying his "not white"ness.

[Peter1469]

I have been humbled by going against Polly's predictions in the past, so I certainly won't do that now, 4 years out- or likely 4 days out.

It would be good for the GOP if Biden got the nomination. He makes Bush look like a Mensa member.

I would like to see Christie as the GOP ticket, only because he doesn't take crap and would dominate reporters and opponents. But he is too far left economically for me.

Rubio I may be able to support. He must be watched over the next 4 years.

Rand Paul I would support.

1 thing is for sure, I am not a guaranteed GOP voter for 2016. My main issue is the economy and limited government. If the GOP can't offer that, I will vote third party or not at all.

With that said, I will disagree with Polly about the economy and its stability over the next four years. We don't need to get into specific numbers, but we all can agree that the official debt is very high, and the unofficial debt is unbelievably high. Our debt payments are staggering. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

You can find the average rate of interest per year here: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/rates/pd/avg/avg.htm

Those rates are historically and astronomically low. Much of the activity of the Federal Reserve is to hold these rates down; and even they admit that these measures are losing their effectiveness. Either on our own, or prompted by a major Euro Zone crisis, our interest rates are likely to go up within the next four years- likely significantly. As interest rates rise, those payments in the first link will grow exponentially. An increase to 4% interest rates (average) would cripple the economy and likely crash the USD.

[bladimz]

In other words a very fancy way of saying his "not white"ness.
Whatever you say. It's your post.

[bladimz]

The GOP will soon engage in racial pandering. Great.Apparently ass-kissing the rich just isn't enough any more. :grin:

[Adelaide]

The problem with Clinton is that women do not age as well as men; appearance is subconsciously important to voters, whether they want to actually admit it or not. This probably comes off as sexist, but it's merely a fact that in 2016 Clinton will look significantly older and based on her previous health concerns, might not be in great health in 4 years time.

[Mister D]

Apparently ass-kissing the rich just isn't enough any more. :grin:

That's less funny when you consider the fact that "the rich" control both parties .

[Peter1469]

The problem with Clinton is that women do not age as well as men; appearance is subconsciously important to voters, whether they want to actually admit it or not. This probably comes off as sexist, but it's merely a fact that in 2016 Clinton will look significantly older and based on her previous health concerns, might not be in great health in 4 years time.

I was going to add that to my last post, but decided against it. :smiley: But I have said it before, maybe even here.

[Adelaide]

I was going to add that to my last post, but decided against it. :smiley: But I have said it before, maybe even here.

Maybe. I know I didn't really start to think about it until I saw it mentioned elsewhere; it makes sense. It could even be translated to Christie - voters might subconsciously (or consciously) veer away from supporting or voting for him based on his weight. Clearly those in his constituency don't have a problem with it, but appearance matters to voters. I could see it affecting his shot at a presidential bid.

[KC]

Maybe. I know I didn't really start to think about it until I saw it mentioned elsewhere; it makes sense. It could even be translated to Christie - voters might subconsciously (or consciously) veer away from supporting or voting for him based on his weight. Clearly those in his constituency don't have a problem with it, but appearance matters to voters. I could see it affecting his shot at a presidential bid.

His weight may be a problem for some, but while he's a pretty big guy, his sorta gives him a friendly look. As many have put it, he looks like the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with.

[Peter1469]

Maybe. I know I didn't really start to think about it until I saw it mentioned elsewhere; it makes sense. It could even be translated to Christie - voters might subconsciously (or consciously) veer away from supporting or voting for him based on his weight. Clearly those in his constituency don't have a problem with it, but appearance matters to voters. I could see it affecting his shot at a presidential bid.

I think his personality overcomes his weight issue.

[Mister D]

His attitude or personality makes for an interesting governor. Not sure I'd like it in a POTUS.

[Private Pickle]

I predict it will be 2016 in 2016.

[Adelaide]

I predict it will be 2016 in 2016.

I think you're wrong.

Sorry, I think that's what we're supposed to do on political discussion forums. :p

[Private Pickle]

I think you're wrong.

Sorry, I think that's what we're supposed to do on political discussion forums. :p

And here I thought it was to waste an innordinate amount of time trying to convince people who will never be convinced. My bad.

[Chris]

I don't care ... I just want to see another Republican Primary Circus

Next time we'll get a two-ring circus.

But Maine is right, "Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. . . "

http://i.snag.gy/wHUX9.jpg

Clint Eastwood could give an encore performance on that!

[Chris]

I predict it will be 2016 in 2016.

? $2016T in debt?

[Adelaide]

And here I thought it was to waste an innordinate amount of time trying to convince people who will never be convinced. My bad.

Well, that, too. Although I've personally changed my position on a few issues after particularly enlightening debates. Have to approach political debate with an open mind and realise you are not always right.

[Private Pickle]

Well, that, too. Although I've personally changed my position on a few issues after particularly enlightening debates. Have to approach political debate with an open mind and realise you are not always right.

I prefer petulance.

[Mister D]

Some people are emotionally committed to their positions. Discussion is still worthwhile because it gives me more practice articulating my own.

[Pete7469]

Polly's got a pretty impressive track record when it comes to predictions. She follows this stuff like a hawk and her record shows it.

I'm not going to argue with her predictions, but depending on the state of the economy in 2016, Republicans will probably go for one of the more conservative options. Christie has a shot of winning the nomination if the Democrats come out of 2016 popular, otherwise it will probably be a conservative or better.

I wasn't addressing her predictions, just her politics. Liberals are wrong, on just about every issue, and when they're right it's on the side of liberty, such as drug decriminalization. I can't allow myself to be consumed with politics that much. I'm disgusted with it to be honest. It seems more like voting for the next "American Idol" than "select who can fuck your life up (but make it feel good temporarily at someone else's expense) or give you back your freedom and responsibility".

[KC]

I wasn't addressing her predictions, just her politics. Liberals are wrong, on just about every issue, and when they're right it's on the side of liberty, such as drug decriminalization. I can't allow myself to be consumed with politics that much. I'm disgusted with it to be honest. It seems more like voting for the next "American Idol" than "select who can fuck your life up (but make it feel good temporarily at someone else's expense) or give you back your freedom and responsibility".


IOW, you couldn't lose an opportunity to put down someone on the left. Got ya.

[Pete7469]

I have been humbled by going against Polly's predictions in the past, so I certainly won't do that now, 4 years out- or likely 4 days out.

It would be good for the GOP if Biden got the nomination. He makes Bush look like a Mensa member.

I would like to see Christie as the GOP ticket, only because he doesn't take crap and would dominate reporters and opponents. But he is too far left economically for me.

Rubio I may be able to support. He must be watched over the next 4 years.

Rand Paul I would support.

1 thing is for sure, I am not a guaranteed GOP voter for 2016. My main issue is the economy and limited government. If the GOP can't offer that, I will vote third party or not at all.

With that said, I will disagree with Polly about the economy and its stability over the next four years. We don't need to get into specific numbers, but we all can agree that the official debt is very high, and the unofficial debt is unbelievably high. Our debt payments are staggering. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

You can find the average rate of interest per year here: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/rates/pd/avg/avg.htm

Those rates are historically and astronomically low. Much of the activity of the Federal Reserve is to hold these rates down; and even they admit that these measures are losing their effectiveness. Either on our own, or prompted by a major Euro Zone crisis, our interest rates are likely to go up within the next four years- likely significantly. As interest rates rise, those payments in the first link will grow exponentially. An increase to 4% interest rates (average) would cripple the economy and likely crash the USD.

When it comes to the economy it seems to be so complex that no one can understand how it's manipulated, or who has the power to do so. It seems a monster has gotten loose, and TPTB are trying to find safe places to hide. We all (not the libs) basically understand that we are stuck in a massive pyramid scheme of unsustainable debt, yet we can't seem to agree on enough other issues to unite on the economy and do the right thing. Our political heroes are trying to appease every self appointed minority, rather that try and convince the nation what needs to be done.

What needs to be done is reject Kensiyan economics, Margot Sangers' eugenics (and racism), political correctness (that divides us) and accept that some sort of morality should be adopted culturally. No one has all the answers, but it seems to me that the people who have the only real answers are under assault by the leftist media 24/7.

[Pete7469]

IOW, you couldn't lose an opportunity to put down someone on the left. Got ya.

Pretty much, they've followed their moonbat messiah and condemned us as the enemy. I won't give up the fight.

[KC]

Pretty much, they've followed their moonbat messiah and condemned us as the enemy. I won't give up the fight.

Right. Glad to see you are willing to take the moral high ground then.

This is exactly the kind of attitude I hate to see from people who I have a lot of ideological agreement with.

[Pete7469]

Right. Glad to see you are willing to take the moral high ground then.

This is exactly the kind of attitude I hate to see from people who I have a lot of ideological agreement with.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't see a "moral high ground" in this conflict. I respect you for taking it, but what it boils down to who can best ridicule their opponents best. I have no problem at all using Saul Alinsky tactics, and it drives liberals batshit (even more so) crazy when we do it. They have John Stewart and S-N-L, we have the internet.

[JackRuby]

More subtle racism from the left.
It's a good thing rational people don't think this way.

I didn't detect any racism at all. Then again what fun would it be if you did not catagorically insult someone on every post you make?

[Taxcutter]

"...misogynistic culture and misogynistic policies that systematically reduce women to sub-human sex objects and baby-making machines"

Taxcutter says:
Care to amplify and lay out a bill of particulars?

[IMPress Polly]

Peter wrote:
Rubio I may be able to support. He must be watched over the next 4 years.

Rand Paul I would support.

As I mentioned in the OP, I think there's a good chance you may have to decide between the two eventually because I suspect they'll both run. In another post, I'll be highlighting the responses of each of them to the president's State of the Union Address yesterday, since they were both given an official avenue through which to issue one.

I would like to add Paul Ryan to the potential mix though. Can't believe I forgot to mention him before! I think there's a fair chance that he'll run for president himself in 2016. Some of his former campaign staffers have indicated that such is a real possibility, and they made these indications even before Mr. Romney's defeat. That could throw a monkey wrench into all of this.


Adelaide wrote:
The problem with Clinton is that women do not age as well as men; appearance is subconsciously important to voters, whether they want to actually admit it or not. This probably comes off as sexist, but it's merely a fact that in 2016 Clinton will look significantly older and based on her previous health concerns, might not be in great health in 4 years time.

Really? So for example you'd argue that George W. Bush won "re"-election in 2004 because he was just so damn attractive compared to his opponent? No, people tend to vote on substance. (Well...mostly anyway.)

When she left office just recently, her job approval rating was 67%. The president's, by comparison, stands at around 53 to 55% these days. She may be aging somewhat, but people know her and like her (myself included), and not just for her style or whatever. In fact, speaking of style, her decision to stop wearing so much heavy make-up last year was met with a lot of fanfare. Women in particular liked it, feeling it more empowering to them.

[Mister D]

In fact, speaking of style, her decision to stop wearing so much heavy make-up last year was met with a lot of fanfare. Women in particular liked it, feeling it more empowering to them.

Right but that contradicts your earlier assertion that most people vote on substance. They obviously do not.

[KC]

Really? So for example you'd argue that George W. Bush won "re"-election in 2004 because he was just so damn attractive compared to his opponent? No, people tend to vote on substance. (Well...mostly anyway.)

When she left office just recently, her job approval rating was 67%. The president's, by comparison, stands at around 53 to 55% these days. She may be aging somewhat, but people know her and like her (myself included), and not just for her style or whatever. In fact, speaking of style, her decision to stop wearing so much heavy make-up last year was met with a lot of fanfare. Women in particular liked it, feeling it more empowering to them.

No, smart people vote on substance. Most people do not.

[Mister D]

No, smart people vote on substance. Most people do not.

Even many of those who pay attention to politics don't vote on substance.

[KC]

Even many of those who pay attention to politics don't vote on substance.

Right. Watching politics in Washington is like watching a soap opera. In the end it's entertaining but doesn't really lead you to make good choices.

[Mister D]

Right. Watching politics in Washington is like watching a soap opera. In the end it's entertaining but doesn't really lead you to make good choices.

I compare it to being as sports fan. You just root for your team.

[Peter1469]

As I mentioned in the OP, I think there's a good chance you may have to decide between the two eventually because I suspect they'll both run. In another post, I'll be highlighting the responses of each of them to the president's State of the Union Address yesterday, since they were both given an official avenue through which to issue one.

I would like to add Paul Ryan to the potential mix though. Can't believe I forgot to mention him before! I think there's a fair chance that he'll run for president himself in 2016. Some of his former campaign staffers have indicated that such is a real possibility, and they made these indications even before Mr. Romney's defeat. That could throw a monkey wrench into all of this.



Really? So for example you'd argue that George W. Bush won "re"-election in 2004 because he was just so damn attractive compared to his opponent? No, people tend to vote on substance. (Well...mostly anyway.)

When she left office just recently, her job approval rating was 67%. The president's, by comparison, stands at around 53 to 55% these days. She may be aging somewhat, but people know her and like her (myself included), and not just for her style or whatever. In fact, speaking of style, her decision to stop wearing so much heavy make-up last year was met with a lot of fanfare. Women in particular liked it, feeling it more empowering to them.

Paul Ryan is another man I would support. He gets the economic issues. But you are correct, it will through off what you previously set up. The GOP needs a shorter primary season. The long primary season hurt them this past cycle.

I do agree with Adeladie, Hillary will likely look much older in 4 years and that typically doesn't work well for women. Sorry, it is a double standard in America.

[Captain Obvious]

I'm not getting into predicting candidates, but I do expect the GOP to sell out.

The party is more important than the principle.

[GrumpyDog]

In 2014, the people, will be convinced that Obama is a puppet of Corporate America, Oil and Energy Cartels.

Tea Party will become the mainstream party and will win a landslide, as the Federal Budget will not have been balanced, and the National Debt will be 18.5 Trillion.

Gas at $4.55/gallon, with not any progress at all made in biofuel production, solar energy production, or even natural gas production.


Wallstreet high profits while 25% of USA population will be at the poverty line or below, and another 50% will have become low income.

Predator drones will be flying overhead, looking for American citizens on the Presidents terrorist suspect list. Chicago will be excluded from such surveillance, but small towns across the Southern USA in particular, will notice a significant increase in Predator surveillance.

The first US citizen casualties by a Predator Drone strike, will occur in Southern USA, with highest probability in Texas.

By 2016, Southern states in America will be following Texas, and succeeding from the Union, should the 2014 elections fail to upset the Democratic Elitist party with an infusion of Tea Party Independents.

[Mainecoons]

Dawg, you may not be far off, considering:

Under the "Party of the Common Man" the following has happened already:

Millions have lost full time jobs and are having to get by on low paying zero benefit part time work.
Blacks, women, hispanics take it on the chin in the ObamaDepression and retaliate by. . . .voting him back in??
Half the stupid young who graduate from college now can't find jobs related to their diplomas. They also voted for more of the same.
Gasoline prices (working folks use that stuff to get to work) are setting new records for February.
Energy prices are up as much as 50 percent in some places and rising as Obama's EPA drives cheap coal fired plants out of business.
Food stamp usage at record highs and rapidly rising
Social Security "disability" also setting records as desperate people bend the rules to survive ObamaProsperity
Gun purchasing and hoarding also hitting records as people begin to figure out their government is out to get them.
Regarding the last item, sometimes it is more than paranoia given that said government's CIVILIAN agencies are stockpiling firepower in a totally unprecedented manner.
Small savers and retired people being gutted by a combination of ObamaFlation and zero interest on their savings directly caused by ObamaPrinting of money.
Trillion dollar budget deficits as far as the eye can see in the future but for sure at least as long as Obama and Harry are calling the shots.
47 percent of the country getting Federal checks while 53 percent are expected to pay more and more and more. . .

Ah but the good news!

The One Percenters are making out like bandits:

Equal opportunity whores like our own Cigar have never had it so good if we believe his own clueless and tasteless bragging. The KKK cares more about what has happened to blacks under Obama than the Cigars do.
A new stock market bubble, unrelated to any real growth in the underlying values of the companies, is rapidly making the rich richer. Earnings are going up as a result of laying people off and squeezing the remaining ones even more. A real recipe for escalating underemployment and desperation.
That rebounding housing market? Nothing more than the rich via wall street buying up thousands and thousands of foreclosures while the previous owners land in the streets.
Also a wonderful boom in the ranks of those overpaid, largely worthless Federal workers who think they should get fat raises while everyone else does with less and less and less.

I think the Onion was right when they said we got the government we deserved. Clearly, there's a lot of support out there for doubling down on failure.

[JackRuby]

Anyone who votes for the two major parties gets the government they deserve. You have no right to complain about the mess you caused.

Jack

[Dr. Who]

The problem with Clinton is that women do not age as well as men; appearance is subconsciously important to voters, whether they want to actually admit it or not. This probably comes off as sexist, but it's merely a fact that in 2016 Clinton will look significantly older and based on her previous health concerns, might not be in great health in 4 years time.
I have to say, she really seems to have let herself go. I did hear however, that she used to be that way and really only took care of her appearance during the First Lady and Governor period of her career. I don't think she really cares anymore, or she is too worn out to care.

[Dr. Who]

In 2014, the people, will be convinced that Obama is a puppet of Corporate America, Oil and Energy Cartels.

Tea Party will become the mainstream party and will win a landslide, as the Federal Budget will not have been balanced, and the National Debt will be 18.5 Trillion.


Gas at $4.55/gallon, with not any progress at all made in biofuel production, solar energy production, or even natural gas production.


Wallstreet high profits while 25% of USA population will be at the poverty line or below, and another 50% will have become low income.

Predator drones will be flying overhead, looking for American citizens on the Presidents terrorist suspect list. Chicago will be excluded from such surveillance, but small towns across the Southern USA in particular, will notice a significant increase in Predator surveillance.

The first US citizen casualties by a Predator Drone strike, will occur in Southern USA, with highest probability in Texas.

By 2016, Southern states in America will be following Texas, and succeeding from the Union, should the 2014 elections fail to upset the Democratic Elitist party with an infusion of Tea Party Independents.
Cynical much?

[Morningstar]

Anyone who votes for the two major parties gets the government they deserve. You have no right to complain about the mess you caused.

Jack
The right candidate could make me a fortune. And yes, I deserve it...

[Morningstar]

In 2014, the people, will be convinced that Obama is a puppet of Corporate America, Oil and Energy Cartels.

Tea Party will become the mainstream party and will win a landslide, as the Federal Budget will not have been balanced, and the National Debt will be 18.5 Trillion.

Gas at $4.55/gallon, with not any progress at all made in biofuel production, solar energy production, or even natural gas production.


Wallstreet high profits while 25% of USA population will be at the poverty line or below, and another 50% will have become low income.

Predator drones will be flying overhead, looking for American citizens on the Presidents terrorist suspect list. Chicago will be excluded from such surveillance, but small towns across the Southern USA in particular, will notice a significant increase in Predator surveillance.

The first US citizen casualties by a Predator Drone strike, will occur in Southern USA, with highest probability in Texas.

By 2016, Southern states in America will be following Texas, and succeeding from the Union, should the 2014 elections fail to upset the Democratic Elitist party with an infusion of Tea Party Independents.

You appear to be insane. You should not be allowed to own a firearm.

[GrumpyDog]

you appear to be insane. You should not be allowed to own a firearm.

too late!