"America loves a winner and will not tolerate a loser" - George Patton
Joined: Jul 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 5,181 Location: Fallbrook, CA
Looking foward to 2016. « Thread Started on Aug 7, 2012, 3:06pm »
November is still three months off, but I have been wondering about who might be viable candidates for President in 2016.
Obviously, if Romney wins, only the Democrats will need to choose a candidate. Just to make this question more interesting, let's assume that Obama serves another term.
(How things go in a second Obama term will affect the choice of candidates. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether to take various Obama second term scenarios into account.)
So, who do you think will be the three or four most likely aspirants from both parties? By likely aspirant, I mean a man or woman who will be taken seriously nationally and will get significant monetary and political support. (Do NOT list your suggestions based on who you like or dislike.)
Re: Looking foward to 2016. « Reply #4 on Aug 9, 2012, 5:15pm »
The Dems are in trouble in '16 even if they don't recognize it. There are very few (none, I can think of) Dems that are high ranking in their party sufficiently young enough to be a viable candidate. Kankles will be 70 in 2016. Pelosi and Reid will be even older and are unelectable. Slow Joe will be in some nursing home telling lame jokes to the nurses as they change his diaper. To the extent there are any younger back benchers that are not far left Occupy loons, they certainly have no national profile to this point.
If I had to bet , I'd say Andrew Cuomo or Heath Schuler. Cuomo is positioning himself for the bid right now but NY Goombas don't typically do well nationally. Schuler would need to start building his campaign today to even have half a chance. This is a party that has 3 senators that are damn near 90 and a bunch that are north of 80.
Republicans will be in far better shape with a roster of young governors, senators and congressmen. Rubio, Ryan, Jindal, Nikki Haley, Gov. Walker, Scott Brown as well as a redshirt class of folks like Ted Cruz and Mia Love ( if she wins her general in Nov).
"America loves a winner and will not tolerate a loser" - George Patton
Joined: Jul 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 5,181 Location: Fallbrook, CA
Re: Looking foward to 2016. « Reply #5 on Aug 10, 2012, 1:22am »
Barack Obama may well squeak by this Novmeber, but if he does, I predict that the Democrats will be punished in 2014 and 2016 just as the Republicans were in 2006 and 2008. Obama Fatigue will set in fairly quickly unless BHO learns to be a bit more flexible. Even that may not be enough to save his party, at least in the short run.
It will become apparent (even to those who haven't paid attention) that the President's promises to allow people to keep their own health insurance policy and doctor were either outright lies or the made-up-one-the-spot baloney of a pol who will say anything to gain political advantage. But, then, Obama will have his second term. What the hell will he care if what he promised on many occasions has been proven to be utterly meaningless posturing?
Also, if the economy continues to suck, the Democrats will have little chance of winning many seats in 2014. Of course, being a President who uses his own decrees to rule without regard to the Congress or the Constitution will give him a chance to do lots of mischief even if the GOP enjoys big majorities in the House and Senate.
There is a real chance that Obama will so undermine our traditional governmental structure that even a Republican Party in power may find it next to impossible to change course. For a hint of what that can mean just look at the British Conservative Party. The socialist restructuring put in place by the Labor Party was so thorough-going that the Tories are basically unable to make any real reforms without inviting massive French and Greek style street riots.
AzWm
« Last Edit: Aug 10, 2012, 1:29am by AztecWilliam »
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith
If "demographics" continue to move as they have for the last 45 years, it won't matter who the Democrats put out there. That candidate WILL win.
Well, let's see; 45 years ago gets us back to 1967. Since then, the GOP has won the presidency seven out of eleven times.
Your point about demographics is not without merit. But it is quite possible that a candidate with broad appeal such as a John Huntsman will emerge and lead the Republicans to victory again. Do you really think that the Democrats are just going to win and win and win as far as the eye can see (badly mixed metaphor I'm afraid)?
Our current habit of borrowing 40% of every federal dollar spent cannot, repeat CANNOT continue indefinitely. No intelligent person can possibly believe that the nation can survive economically without a huge change in how we do business. (And, please, don't tell me that the rich have to pay their fair share. There simply are not enough rich people to pay for a yearly deficit of over a trillion dollars.)
Sooner or later the President of the U.S.A. is going to have to go on national TV and announce that the country has too much debt and has no choice but to massively raise taxes, cut spending significantly, or a combination of the two. (Which is what the Simpson-Bowles committee recommended. You remember Simpson-Bowles, don't you? You know, the committee that Barack Obama commissioned and then ignored when it's recommendations were announced.)
If that hypothetical President is a Democrat, it's very likely that the Democrats will lose the next presidential election. (That even though such an announcement may be fully justified.) Of course, if that hypothetical President is a Republican, well, that would mean that the GOP would have already gotten control of the White House again.
Or, perhaps, you are suggesting that the Democrats' plan to balance the budget (I know, there is absolutely no such plan at present) will usher in a wonderful fifty year era of one party rule in this country. Perhaps the Dems could try to break the record of Mexico's PRI!
Re: Looking foward to 2016. « Reply #8 on Aug 11, 2012, 6:24pm »
Jon Huntsman doesn't have broad appeal. If the Republicans don't want to go extinct they'll need to stop listening to the neocons and possibly the extremes in the social conservative side (either that or find a way to not make it an issue). Those are probably the biggest negatives.
Heading more Libertarian would probably help but it's hard to predict how things will be decades from now.
Obama Fatigue will set in fairly quickly unless BHO learns to be a bit more flexible. Even that may not be enough to save his party, at least in the short run.
"Obama Fatigue" will afflict only those who aren't receiving government "aid," and that number is decreasing by the day.
What happens when the government "aid" doesn't really buy them much? I think the Republicans would do well in going more libertarian, especially if they want to attract younger voters.
"Obama Fatigue" will afflict only those who aren't receiving government "aid," and that number is decreasing by the day.
What happens when the government "aid" doesn't really buy them much? I think the Republicans would do well in going more libertarian, especially if they want to attract younger voters.
Sooner or later they will run out of OPM.
It took the USSR about 3 generations of failure before it collapsed upon itself.
I'm too old now to hope to see the inevitable collapse of this yet another experiment in socialism, tyranny, and misery.
Jon Huntsman doesn't have broad appeal. If the Republicans don't want to go extinct they'll need to stop listening to the neocons and possibly the extremes in the social conservative side (either that or find a way to not make it an issue). Those are probably the biggest negatives.
Heading more Libertarian would probably help but it's hard to predict how things will be decades from now.
I said someone like John Huntsman.
Here are, as I see things, the qualifications that a GOP candidate would have to possess in order to win the presidency of the U.S. sometime in the next two or three decades:
1. Reasonably young/youthful. They are not the same thing. I remember three or more decades ago a race for the presidency of the (I think) steel workers union. The incumbent was about 63 and the challenger was about 57. Nevertheless, for a couple of reasons, the 63 year-old looked more youthful. (He won, as I recall, but how much his appearance had to do with the victory is not certain.) I would think that this hypothetical candidate would probably be between 48 or 49 on the low end and 62 or 63 on the upper end.
2. Have broad appeal. That means getting at least a reasonable share of the various ethnic and/or racial groups. Getting 5% of the black vote won't cut it. As for the Hispanics, I'd say that our generic candidate would have to win at the very least 35% and more likely 40%. He or she would have to appeal to the independents. I would peg 55% as the minimum independent support required.
3. Have strong conservative Republican/libertarian support. McCain was a bit deficient in that regard; Reagan hit a home run. On the other hand, his or her conservatism must not be so hard core than independents are turned off.
4. Be able to speak very well on and off teleprompter. That means having an almost encyclopedic knowledge of politics, economics, national relations, literature, etc.
5. Be able to criticize the Democrats without the "Grandma over the cliff" nastiness that has been used to demonize Republicans. Corollary; must have a very thick hide and respond to ad hominem attacks by the Democrats effectively but with a sense of humor rather than anger.
6. Must have better ideas in the areas of economics and foreign policy than his or her opponent and the ability to explain why those ideas are preferable.
7. Have more than a bit of good luck. If nothing else, good luck will help neutralize the generally left-leaning bias of the national media, who largely prefer, de facto if not de jure, one party government in the U.S. (I have to wonder whether people such as Harry Reid harbor a secret admiration for what the PRI did in Mexico for about 70 years. Oh, by the way, the word is out that the Senator is a serial child molester. Time for him to prove that he innocent!
2. Have broad appeal. That means getting at least a reasonable share of the various ethnic and/or racial groups. Getting 5% of the black vote won't cut it. As for the Hispanics, I'd say that our generic candidate would have to win at the very least 35% and more likely 40%. He or she would have to appeal to the independents. I would peg 55% as the minimum independent support required.
3. Have strong conservative Republican/libertarian support. McCain was a bit deficient in that regard; Reagan hit a home run. On the other hand, his or her conservatism must not be so hard core than independents are turned off.
You're giving me mutually exclusive propositions here.
The gop will never earn more than a handful of black votes and a slightly bigger handful of Hispanic votes because of what you say in #3.
"Strong conservatives" don't like handouts (except inheritance), and that's exactly what the Democrats offer those groups.
Reagan won by huge margins, but I'd like to see county-by-county electoral maps of his victories.
The ideal candidate must be sufficiently conservative so as to gain the general support of the more conservative portions of the GOP. Conservatism can be defined in this way: a political philosophy that (A) respects the nation's most cherished traditions, and (B) believes in a limited federal government as defined by the Constitution. I can't see how most Americans would disagree with those points.
Keep in mind that about twice as many people identify themselves as conservative as those who call themselves liberal. This is essentially a slightly right of center country. Against that fact one must consider the growing percentage of people who believe they must rely, to one degree or another, on government assistance. That latter group tends to favor the party of bigger government, which of course is the Democrats.
In order to believe that the Democrats are going to win the next 10 or 12 presidential elections, one must assume that during their tenure in office things are never going to go to hell economically. The longer a party is in power and the worse things get on the job front, the more willing voters will be to throw the bums out. That's what happened in 1952 (20 years of Democrats in the White House was quite enough for the average voter that year) and 2008.
Keep in mind that in the worst landslides, the losing party still gets about 40% of the votes for President. We just don't see elections in which 80% or 90% of the votes go to one party. Therefore, you don't have to flip too many voters to turn a landslide loss one year into a narrow win four years later. (In other words, a party that gets only 40% in one election needs to change the mind of just one out of every six people who voted the other way in the first election.)
It's a good idea to remember that there is little constant in this world beyond change.
2. Have broad appeal. That means getting at least a reasonable share of the various ethnic and/or racial groups. Getting 5% of the black vote won't cut it. As for the Hispanics, I'd say that our generic candidate would have to win at the very least 35% and more likely 40%. He or she would have to appeal to the independents. I would peg 55% as the minimum independent support required.
3. Have strong conservative Republican/libertarian support. McCain was a bit deficient in that regard; Reagan hit a home run. On the other hand, his or her conservatism must not be so hard core than independents are turned off.
You're giving me mutually exclusive propositions here.
The gop will never earn more than a handful of black votes and a slightly bigger handful of Hispanic votes because of what you say in #3.
"Strong conservatives" don't like handouts (except inheritance), and that's exactly what the Democrats offer those groups.
Reagan won by huge margins, but I'd like to see county-by-county electoral maps of his victories.
So according to you minorities just want handouts?
Jon Huntsman doesn't have broad appeal. If the Republicans don't want to go extinct they'll need to stop listening to the neocons and possibly the extremes in the social conservative side (either that or find a way to not make it an issue). Those are probably the biggest negatives.
Heading more Libertarian would probably help but it's hard to predict how things will be decades from now.
I said someone like John Huntsman.
Here are, as I see things, the qualifications that a GOP candidate would have to possess in order to win the presidency of the U.S. sometime in the next two or three decades:
1. Reasonably young/youthful. They are not the same thing. I remember three or more decades ago a race for the presidency of the (I think) steel workers union. The incumbent was about 63 and the challenger was about 57. Nevertheless, for a couple of reasons, the 63 year-old looked more youthful. (He won, as I recall, but how much his appearance had to do with the victory is not certain.) I would think that this hypothetical candidate would probably be between 48 or 49 on the low end and 62 or 63 on the upper end.
2. Have broad appeal. That means getting at least a reasonable share of the various ethnic and/or racial groups. Getting 5% of the black vote won't cut it. As for the Hispanics, I'd say that our generic candidate would have to win at the very least 35% and more likely 40%. He or she would have to appeal to the independents. I would peg 55% as the minimum independent support required.
3. Have strong conservative Republican/libertarian support. McCain was a bit deficient in that regard; Reagan hit a home run. On the other hand, his or her conservatism must not be so hard core than independents are turned off.
4. Be able to speak very well on and off teleprompter. That means having an almost encyclopedic knowledge of politics, economics, national relations, literature, etc.
5. Be able to criticize the Democrats without the "Grandma over the cliff" nastiness that has been used to demonize Republicans. Corollary; must have a very thick hide and respond to ad hominem attacks by the Democrats effectively but with a sense of humor rather than anger.
6. Must have better ideas in the areas of economics and foreign policy than his or her opponent and the ability to explain why those ideas are preferable.
7. Have more than a bit of good luck. If nothing else, good luck will help neutralize the generally left-leaning bias of the national media, who largely prefer, de facto if not de jure, one party government in the U.S. (I have to wonder whether people such as Harry Reid harbor a secret admiration for what the PRI did in Mexico for about 70 years. Oh, by the way, the word is out that the Senator is a serial child molester. Time for him to prove that he innocent!
AzWm
I pretty much agree. I would add that by no longer attacking certain groups it would help quite a bit (attacking Mexicans for lack of jobs or Gays in regards to marriage or the military), maybe that would go as part as #2.
I also don't know if being/looking young is more important than having ideas that appeal to younger people, but maybe it doesn't hurt.
you just parrot Sh!t you hear on the TEE VEE. Which demographic do you see dooming Republicans?
I don't parrot anything, and the only thing I watch on "TEE VEE" are old sitcoms.
The demographic I see dooming republicans is nonwhites.
1. The US is still 70% white. 2. Internal migration is changing the electoral map, adding votes to traditionally conservative states like Texas, Fl, Tenn, AR etc and away from basket cases like CA, NY an IL. 3. The rate of growth of the Hispanic population has slowed dramatically in the last few years and will continue to slow as the birth rate in countries like Mexico continues to decline. 4. The Hispanic/ Democrat connection is far from written in stone. 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanics tend to have similar voting patterns as white folks in whichever region they reside. 5. The House, which is the best reflection of popular will we have at the national level is Republican controlled and will probably be even more Republican after the next election cycle.
By the way; Which specific policy differences do you see between Jon Huntsman (favorite Republican of Democrats and the ignorant) and Mitt Romney?
I don't parrot anything, and the only thing I watch on "TEE VEE" are old sitcoms.
The demographic I see dooming republicans is nonwhites.
1. The US is still 70% white. 2. Internal migration is changing the electoral map, adding votes to traditionally conservative states like Texas, Fl, Tenn, AR etc and away from basket cases like CA, NY an IL. 3. The rate of growth of the Hispanic population has slowed dramatically in the last few years and will continue to slow as the birth rate in countries like Mexico continues to decline. 4. The Hispanic/ Democrat connection is far from written in stone. 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanics tend to have similar voting patterns as white folks in whichever region they reside. 5. The House, which is the best reflection of popular will we have at the national level is Republican controlled and will probably be even more Republican after the next election cycle.
By the way; Which specific policy differences do you see between Jon Huntsman (favorite Republican of Democrats and the ignorant) and Mitt Romney?
Pew Research projects that whites will represnet 48% of the population by 2050. You can say bye-bye to the future electability of Republican POTUS in the future. And the Paul Ryan style approach to immigration is doomed. If Republicans care about controlling any branch of government in the future, they'd better move to the political "center," and they'd best knock off the anti-immigrant chatter.
For the Dems, I'd say Hillary if she wants to run.
For the Repubs, I'm not so sure. It depends on whether the party continues to move more to the right or back to the center.
Won't Hillary be 70 years old in 2016? Nope, it won't be her.
A far right guy I know swears the 2016 Democratic nominee is going to be Obama's love child. The mother is supposedly a Martian who rumor has it is about to ambush the rover from an invisible mockup of the White House which is just over the next ridge. Republicans have the birth certificate, he says, and it's been verified to be authentic.
He knows it's all true because he read it on one of those websites that's regularly linked on this forum.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/home.png "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/help.png "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/search.png "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/login.png "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/register.png "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/search2.png "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/print.png "[Print]")
Author
Logged![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[image]](http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/3903/hillmansig.gif "[image]")
![[avatar]](http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h319/davdesid/red_wolf6.jpg "[avatar]")
![[image]](http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h319/davdesid/untitled.png "[image]")
