Regardless of who wins the election

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
BrianFromWA

BrianFromWA

Editor in Chief
Staff member
Editor in Chief
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
26,096
Likes
9,073
Points
113
Does the loser have a chance in 2016? Would Obama win a primary against Hillary or any of the other D's? If he's voted out in 2012, it seems like it's a referendum against him personally--that his charisma and "hope" message didn't sway enough people to overcome his record. Would he run in 2016? And if he did, would he beat out Villagarosa, Clinton, Gillibrand, Cuomo, Warner, etc?

I don't see Romney winning in 2016 if he doesn't now.

Personally, I think that this year's crop of R's in the primary basically drove the bus to Romney-ville. It seemed like a strawman standup of right-wing caricatures--here's a crazy woman, here's a crazy guy, here's a crazy Christian nutjob guy, here's Newt, etc.-- that allowed Romney basically to go against Paul with the "he's not winning anyway, so let me be the one to take down Obama" primaries campaign. And it worked. But I doubt that if Rubio, Christie, Walker (or even Ryan) had been running that Romney would have been able to get to this point without clarifying a bunch of issues.

On a tangent, Huntsman needs to get his name out there more. Whether President or not, having a really intelligent guy with that much China/East Asia experience somewhere high up in the government is going to be key in the next decade.
 
Nobody on Earth stands a chance against Hillary should she ever decide to run again.
 
I would agree this is Romney's last run for the White House. As to Obama, he's young enough but if he loses this election to a candidate as weak as Romney the message is clear that he was a failed President. And that will hang on him like a cheap suit if he tries to run again. So, no, I think this is it for both of them. As to Hillary, I seriously doubt she'll run again. In the last election she campaigned poorly and grossly mismanaged her campaign funds. I think she's learned.
 
I don't think Hillary's going to run. I don't think she'd serve a second term as Secy. of State even. If she did run, she'd remind everyone what a nasty person she is (and I get that from friends of mine who work in or run democratic party campaigns and know her).

Biden is the obvious guy to get the nomination, having served 4 or 8 years as VP. Speaking of VPs, Al Gore is a guy on the Dems' side who would logically be as good a choice as any. Think Nixon (lost '60 as sitting VP as did Gore in 2000, won '68).

The republicans need someone of the Clinton model. A sitting governor with retail politicking skills. There are several obvious governors to choose from - Christie, Daniels, etc.
 
Denny Crane said:
I don't think Hillary's going to run. I don't think she'd serve a second term as Secy. of State even. If she did run, she'd remind everyone what a nasty person she is (and I get that from friends of mine who work in or run democratic party campaigns and know her).

Biden is the obvious guy to get the nomination, having served 4 or 8 years as VP. Speaking of VPs, Al Gore is a guy on the Dems' side who would logically be as good a choice as any. Think Nixon (lost '60 as sitting VP as did Gore in 2000, won '68).

The republicans need someone of the Clinton model. A sitting governor with retail politicking skills. There are several obvious governors to choose from - Christie, Daniels, etc.
Click to expand...

Biden will be too old.

Stupid, too.
 
Huntsman was the most interesting candidate for me from the Republicans but I predict neither candidate will be a caucasian male in the next election.

I also think the political climate is set for a major 3rd party candidate.
 
bluefrog said:
I also think the political climate is set for a major 3rd party candidate.
Click to expand...

Why?

I mean, Bush was grossly ineffective for 8 years, things have been so hopelessly screwed up under Obama and the GOP has nothing better to offer than a Romney now. If ever we needed a 'great reformer' with new and fresh ideas (rather than the same old mistakes by the left and the right) it is now. Or even 4 years ago. And what do we have from any potential third party? Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffttttttttttt.

No, with all due respect, while we are desparate for a third party it just isn't going to happen, IMHO. And I'll tell you why. In a word, sheep. There are too many people on both the left & right that are told what to think and how to vote and they drink the kool-aid. There aren't enough people with the intellectual capacity to actuallty consider the issues and reason things out to start a viable third party. And if you need a small sampling as proof, look around this board.
 
Last edited:
BLAZER PROPHET said:
No, with all due respect, while we are desparate for a third party it just isn't going to happen, IMHO. And I'll tell you why. In a word, sheep. There are too many people on both the left & right that are told what to think and how to vote and they drink the kool-aid. There aren't enough people with the intellectual capacity to actuallty consider the issues and reason things out to start a viable third party. And if you need a small sampling as proof, look around this board.
Click to expand...

so which one are YOU voting for? :lol:
 
I generally agree with everything said in this thread. I would be interested in Hunstman if he didn't balk on his stance about evolution and global warming anymore. I'm not sure about his social issues stance, but I suspect they would also be more mainstream. With that said, it seems weird to imagine Biden or Hillary running.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
Why?

I mean, Bush was grossly ineffective for 8 years, things have been so hopelessly screwed up under Obama and the GOP has nothing better to offer than a Romney now. If ever we needed a 'great reformer' with new and fresh ideas (rather than the same old mistakes by the left and the right) it is now. Or even 4 years ago. And what do we have from any potential third party? Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffttttttttttt.

No, with all due respect, while we are desparate for a third party it just isn't going to happen, IMHO. And I'll tell you why. In a word, sheep. There are too many people on both the left & right that are told what to think and how to vote and they drink the kool-aid. There aren't enough people with the intellectual capacity to actuallty consider the issues and reason things out to start a viable third party. And if you need a small sampling as proof, look around this board.
Click to expand...

The other problem with adding a 3rd 4th or 5th party is that it divides things up and makes it easier for an extremists political party to take power. Which could be just as bad. With more parties you end up dividing up either the conservative or liberal vote and can end up with a less represented opposition winning. Ralph Nadar anyone?
 
donkiez said:
The other problem with adding a 3rd 4th or 5th party is that it divides things up and makes it easier for an extremists political party to take power. Which could be just as bad. With more parties you end up dividing up either the conservative or liberal vote and can end up with a less represented opposition winning. Ralph Nadar anyone?
Click to expand...

If you split the vote like that, some coalition of the groups have to get together to pass anything.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
Why?

I mean, Bush was grossly ineffective for 8 years, things have been so hopelessly screwed up under Obama and the GOP has nothing better to offer than a Romney now. If ever we needed a 'great reformer' with new and fresh ideas (rather than the same old mistakes by the left and the right) it is now. Or even 4 years ago. And what do we have from any potential third party? Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffttttttttttt.

No, with all due respect, while we are desparate for a third party it just isn't going to happen, IMHO. And I'll tell you why. In a word, sheep. There are too many people on both the left & right that are told what to think and how to vote and they drink the kool-aid. There aren't enough people with the intellectual capacity to actuallty consider the issues and reason things out to start a viable third party. And if you need a small sampling as proof, look around this board.
Click to expand...

3 reasons:

- Growing disapproval of the 2 major parties
- Rise in independent voters
- Organization of political movements on the right and left i.e. Occupy, Tea Party
 
Occupy isn't as much a political movement as it is a bunch of really unhappy people. Unhappy they borrowed for education and can't get a job, unhappy they're not rich like the 1%, etc.

Tea Party seems interested in taking over an existing party more than becoming a 3rd party.

However, this year we had both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson run in the republican primaries. Along with the spirit of what the Tea Party talks about (constitutional govt., smaller government, etc.), Paul's strongest showing (for a Libertarian) ever, Paul's son being elected, the 40 newly elected (2010) tea party backed candidates, etc., might mean people will wise up and give the Libertarians serious consideration.

I'd be interested in specific policies that Johnson proposes that people take issue with. "Smaller govt." is a goal/ideal, not a policy. Bringing the troops home ASAP is a policy.
 
bluefrog said:
3 reasons:

- Growing disapproval of the 2 major parties
- Rise in independent voters
- Organization of political movements on the right and left i.e. Occupy, Tea Party
Click to expand...

OK, all good and true points. However, based on this I would see any third party to most likely be radical or extreme. They garner so little support. A viable third party would have to be more moderate that either the left or right and offer up common sense answers to problems. Neither of which are the two you mentioned.
 
3RA1N1AC said:
you are one of the sheep you ironically deride so often

"everyone else is a sheep! im voting for romney!" :lol:
Click to expand...

A "sheep" isn't someone who votes either left or right, but one who has to lock step with their party line- even when they know it's wrong. Or becasue their union or church tells them so and they therefore automatically believe it. In general, I used to vote 60/40 democrat but now it's probably 60/40 republican. Rather than following some party plank I look at the issues for myself and then the candidates as individuals and vote accordingly.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
A "sheep" isn't someone who votes either left or right, but one who has to lock step with their party line- even when they know it's wrong. Or becasue their union or church tells them so and they therefore automatically believe it. In general, I used to vote 60/40 democrat but now it's probably 60/40 republican. Rather than following some party plank I look at the issues for myself and then the candidates as individuals and vote accordingly.
Click to expand...

ok wait, so why am i a sheep again? you keep saying that im not sure that word means what you think it means

and what is it that makes romney better than gary johnson in your opinion?
 
Hillary won't even make it to the next term as SoS if Obama wins. Her own State Dep't. testified today that they didn't even believe her story about the "video" being responsible.

She just got thrown under the bus, and her own employees are testifying under oath that they didn't believe her excuse, or Obama's excuse, for what was clearly a pre-planned act of terror.

She has zero shot of winning in 2016, and she won't even run.
 
3RA1N1AC said:
ok wait, so why am i a sheep again? you keep saying that im not sure that word means what you think it means

and what is it that makes romney better than gary johnson in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Brainiac is a lot of things, but a "sheep," in terms of politics, he is not. At least that's what I gather based on years of observing and commenting on his OT posts. He's probably the most independent poster in our group of 15 or so consistently posting on here about politics.
 
hillary kind of picked a bad time to run, she prolly could have beat bush in 2004
 
You heard it here 1st.

Our 1st Female President will be Elizabeth Warren in 2016 (Keynote Speaker at the DNC just like Barack in 04').
After she beats Scott Brown, she will have 4 years of experience in the Senate before the next election.

I honestly don't think Christie, Rubio, or another Bush can beat her.

I await your jeers and cheap shots. :shitstorm:
 
PapaG said:
Hillary won't even make it to the next term as SoS if Obama wins. Her own State Dep't. testified today that they didn't even believe her story about the "video" being responsible.

She just got thrown under the bus, and her own employees are testifying under oath that they didn't believe her excuse, or Obama's excuse, for what was clearly a pre-planned act of terror.
Click to expand...

Pure fiction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top