Started By
Message

re: Clinton vs Bush most probable 2016 race

Posted on 12/29/14 at 12:41 pm to
Posted by teke184
Zachary, LA
Member since Jan 2007
96212 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 12:41 pm to
Obama was being pushed as the Next Big Thing by the Dems since 2004, when he gave the keynote speech as the national convention.

I don't think anyone was expecting him to run seriously in 2008 but he was being positioned for big things by the party and it was noted by a lot of people who paid attention in politics.
Posted by NHTIGER
Central New Hampshire
Member since Nov 2003
16188 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 12:52 pm to
quote:

Ever hear of Obama before he ran in 08?


You can't be serious with that statement on a political talk board. He was the talk of the political world after his keynote address at the 2004 convention as the nominee of his party for the IL U.S. senate seat that year, a seat he won by an overwhelming 47 point margin. He was an up-and-coming superstar, enjoying the media limelight before he won that election, before he was even sworn in as a U.S. senator.

quote:

the two that are being touted as front runners right now.

Will fade down the stretch


Very, very possible. If Clinton makes it through the entire primary season, she will win the nomination. The question is does she get derailed (or derail herself) long before the Iowa caucuses. I don't think 2015 is going to be good for her at all, but if she weathers all storms in the next 12 months, I believe she will win the nomination simply due to a lack of a viable contender. She's been riding free up to this point, but she will have to start paying the tolls soon, and those "tolls" will , well, take their toll on her - physically, psychologically and emotionally.
This post was edited on 12/29/14 at 12:53 pm
Posted by Sentrius
Fort Rozz
Member since Jun 2011
64757 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 1:02 pm to
It's like both parties are determined to give us two shittest candidates ever.

I'll be voting for Gary Johnson again if no Rand on the ballot.
Posted by Scruffy
Kansas City
Member since Jul 2011
72158 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 1:03 pm to
quote:

It's like both parties are determined to give us two shittest candidates ever. I'll be voting for Gary Johnson again if no Rand on the ballot.
No kidding. People support these choices. It is insane.
Posted by RD Dawg
Atlanta
Member since Sep 2012
27303 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 1:54 pm to
quote:

convention as the nominee of his party for the IL U.S. senate seat that year, a seat he won by an overwhelming 47 point margin. He was an up-and-coming superstar, enjoying the media limelight before he won that election, before he was even sworn in as a U.S. senator.


Please,he freakin ran against Allen Keyes because Ryan (I believe) was caught up in a sex scandal.His Senate victory was a total fluke.

And NOBODY thought he'd get the nomination ahead of Hillary in '08. Once again,a perfect storm becuase of the economic crisis at the time and Hillary was thought to be part of the "establishment" plus none of the "pundits" had realized how far the left the DNC had become at the time.

Posted by NHTIGER
Central New Hampshire
Member since Nov 2003
16188 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 2:01 pm to
quote:

No kidding. People support these choices. It is insane.


But Scruff, you better than anyone else know that the sentiments expressed on this board don't reflect the sentiments of voters across the country. Romney got more popular votes than all of the other GOP candidates (Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, Huntsman, Perry, Bachmann and "Other") combined. Those votes came from individual American citizens, not from some imagined establishment machine. Sure beats the old days before there were primaries in most states when candidates were chosen in those legendary smoke-filled rooms.

Remember the infamous 1968 Democratic convention, which gave the nomination to Hubert Humphrey, who had a total of 2% of the primary votes that year, compared to McCarthy's 37%? That was because only 14 states held primaries that year, taking the decision out of the hands of the people and awarding it to the insiders. With all states now participating in the primary/caucus selection process, the power on the GOP side is in the hands of the people, specifically those people who come out to vote. The remaining weakness in the system is primarily in the Democrat party which used the superdelegate system to determine the outcome of the 2008 Democratic nomination. The Republicans have very few superdelegates and thus the GOP primaries/caucuses are more important the than that of the Dems. Clinton competed very strongly with Obama throughout the 2008 primary season and trailed him by only small margins in both votes and delegates won through to the final primary, yet lost to Obama badly in the massive superdelegate (party officials and insiders) category, led by Kennedy and Kerry, with most of the other powerbrokers following the lead of those two men.

The fact there there about 16-18 Republicans who have at least a longshot chance to win the 2016 nomination makes a strong case that the outcome is not pre-determined. If a Republican candidate captures the confidence and trust of the voters, and is able to motivate them to cast a vote in the primaries/caucuses, that candidate will gain financial backing as his (her) momentum builds and will be able to remain viable all the way through the primaries, adding more weight to the late-primary states. There was no such candidate in 2012 for the GOP, other than Romney. On the Dem side, due to the superdelegate system, an "insider" candidate can come out of the primaries in second place and win the nomination with room to spare.

The Democrats use power politics in terms of the nomination process in a far more heavyhanded manner than the Republicans do.

I illustrated the case just the other day that the Romney primary win in heavily-Democrat New Jersey wiped out 5 Southern Romney losses in the South in 2012 (the proposed "SEC Pact" states planing a March 1st regional primary in 2016), in terms of delegates won, simply by wisely avoiding the same mistake those same Republican states are about to make again this year.

Posted by ironsides
Nashville, TN
Member since May 2006
8153 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 2:09 pm to
quote:

NHTIGER


So you're saying it's a bit premature

Posted by socraticsilence
Member since Dec 2013
1347 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 2:14 pm to
quote:


Who are they NOT praying for? Who do they fear the most? Who makes them quake in their boots?



Honest answer? Rick Snyder terrifies me, he's everything Scott Walker is but a hell of a lot smarter and a much better politician (see him standing up to a rich donor on the bridge to Canada to maintain credibility vs the Koch stuff) or honestly a Latino politician with skills because it would prevent the party from locking in the Hispanic base for decades which one or two more election cycles will do.
Posted by NHTIGER
Central New Hampshire
Member since Nov 2003
16188 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 3:21 pm to
quote:

So you're saying it's a bit premature



In a word, certainly. But the $$$ support will be picking up momentum up in this next quarter (as I posted earlier, more than $50M in donations to Obama and Clinton combined in 1st Q of 2007), and people will start to officially announce their candidacies (and non-candidacies) in the upcoming months. We're 13 months away from the Iowa caucuses and things start to move fast when they do start to move. It's not the hard poll numbers that matter in the first half of 2015, but trends within those numbers. Due to her ridiculously high numbers early on, Clinton has only one way to go and that's down. Her numbers dropping will thus not be significant in and of themselves, but only in terms of any inverse proportion to the rise of some other Dem candidate. (Will non-Hillary Dems unite behind one opponent, or split among 3 or 4 others?) On the Republican side, each candidate will get a bump at the time they announce; the question will be can they sustain that bounce. There will be candidates that have not appeared in any of these early polls, and one or two may well catch fire early on.

Yes, it's definitely premature. But in the next six months, which will fly by fast, we'll know most of the players and and the numbers will start to take on meaning. Not as much for who leads, but for who will bite the dust early. As candidate #10 drops out, who gains his financial support and campaign "team"? Which "sub-races" (two candidates with the same supporters/backers, one yields to the other, drops out, and endorses the other) develop? Much of what will transpire in the first half of 2016 will be molded by candidates and events in 2015.

The "premature" stage will move on to the simply "early" stage by the end of May, the "significant" stage by the end of August, and the "serious" stage by the end of October, when struggling candidates see the writing on the wall and start to officially withdraw. The 2016 primary season will be the shortest, most-condensed in recent history and the general election campaign the longest. A nominee that is not physically energetic, healthy and durable will have more trouble than ever surviving the process without showing their weaknesses and flaws.

This new "longer run" will not play well for Hillary Clinton. An opponent that has experience under the gun for protracted periods of time and has weathered it successfully could make her look very vulnerable by comparison.

An opponent like Walker, who faces adversity without batting an eye or giving an inch. The question for him, however, is where will his funding come from. A Republican who can win three statewide elections in Wisconsin in a 4 year period , Walker will have just turned 49 days before Election day and seems up to the rigors of this new long post-convention campaign . He also seems able to conquer the intra-party divide that has emerged in recent years (in the same way newly-elected IA Senator Joni Ernst did this year).

One of his major obstacles, however, though it shouldn't be from a practical perspective, is that the fire in his belly often doesn't effectively translate into his overall persona. Though it shouldn't matter, the populace reacts well not only to a fighter, which he clearly is, not only to one who inspires confidence, which he does, but also to someone who has a personality, an ability to be informal and to come across as one of them. I believe Walker has that character trait, but for the most part has internalized it.

He didn't blink at the state level. He needs to show that he won't blink at the national level, and that he can even smile now and then, that it's okay and does not undermine his seriousness of purpose.

The above, however, is not to say Walker is my guy yet because ...



quote:

it's a bit premature
Posted by TN_Tigers
West Tennessee
Member since Feb 2013
7193 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 3:46 pm to
I'll be sure to check out the Clinton/Bush electoral map right after the 2008 Giuliani/Clinton one.
Posted by lsu480
Downtown Scottsdale
Member since Oct 2007
92876 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 5:35 pm to
I want Trey Gowdy, that dude is hilarious!
Posted by LordoftheManor
Member since Jul 2006
8371 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 7:07 pm to
This would suck so many balls.
Posted by TT9
Global warming
Member since Sep 2008
82952 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 7:24 pm to
quote:

smartest man on earth



quote:

Bush



Posted by mtheob17
Charleston, SC
Member since Sep 2009
5333 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 10:54 pm to
quote:

Bush could be the smartest man on earth and the best leader and still not get elected, all because of a last name.


agreed
Posted by mtheob17
Charleston, SC
Member since Sep 2009
5333 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 10:56 pm to
If Warren gets elected, we're in deep shite.
Posted by member12
Bob's Country Bunker
Member since May 2008
32106 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 11:12 pm to
quote:

Bush could be the smartest man on earth and the best leader and still not get elected, all because of a last name.


The Clinton name carries it's own baggage as well.
Posted by bhtigerfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2008
29658 posts
Posted on 12/30/14 at 12:04 am to
quote:

I am sure that Jeb is a nice guy, just like the rest of the family. The problem is that we need someone in office that will hold strong and be willing to fight the dems and establishment to undo (or at least start to) this fricking mess. 

The Bush family is too willing to compromise....after all that is what hurt Bush 41. 

Bush 43 just laid down during his second term after the dumbocrats took congress, and didn't fight back about the spending. He decided to join in. 

I greatly admire the family, but they are not what we need right now. 

You nailed it. Is the Republican leadership really stupid enough to believe that another Bush could, or should actually win the presidency again?
Posted by olgoi khorkhoi
priapism survivor
Member since May 2011
14878 posts
Posted on 12/30/14 at 12:44 am to
Bush would be an unmitigated disaster for the Republican party and conservatism in this country. Each of the last two Bush presidencies led to 8-year terms for democrats and congress also went democrat. Progressive policies turn the country in the opposite direction of whoever is implementing them, and Jeb is a dyed-in-the-wool progressive.

Jeb Bush would not only keep us on the shitty track we've been on for the last 50+ years, but he would set the table for another radical leftist to sweep into the white house, riding the wave of discontent that another Bush presidency would inevitably bring.

It would be much better for Hillary to get in and continue to grow the Republican majorities in both houses of congress while the country continues to shift to the right. After a few years of Hillary, America might be ready for a real conservative and he would likely have two super-majorities waiting for him.
Posted by Colonel Flagg
Baton Rouge
Member since Apr 2010
22815 posts
Posted on 12/30/14 at 1:22 am to
Walker has no chance. Honestly there is no way a person without a college degree would get elected these days.
Posted by infantry1026
Louisiana
Member since Jan 2010
6043 posts
Posted on 12/30/14 at 2:21 am to
That's part of the problem. Just because he does not have a degree, it does not mean that he is unintelligent.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram