And they’re off!
On December 31, Jeb Bush resigned from all board memberships, corporate and non-profit, giving himself a clean slate for the new year- “That question is sooo 2014”.
Mike Huckabee quit his slot on Fox News, signalling his intent to get in the race. (He’s number 1 in Iowa; buoyed by the Christian Right- though Ben Carson wasn’t included in the poll.)
Sen. Frothy may run too: washingtonexaminer.com/santo … le/2557284
And maybe Romney: politico.com/story/2014/12/m … 13518.html
Its like some kind of reunion! Meanwhile, what have the Clintons been up to?
By this time next year, we’ll have a huge field of Republican candidates. Only one or two will have a shot at the general election, of course, but that won’t stop the others. I think if Republicans want any shot at the White House, they’ve got to start separating the serious candidates from the complete jokers. Here’s my list of least to most likely nomineess:
Santorum will never be president and he adds nothing to the party-he’s a throwback to a time that never existed. I doubt he could be elected anything but dog catcher in the most Catholic district of PA-in fact, that might be a good job for him considering he still believes that gay marriage somehow leads to bestiality.
Huckabee, just Santorum with a smile. He seems like a nice guy, but have you ever seen his show? He’s another loser who will keep trying.
Ben Carson has no chance. Sorry. I know there will be tons of party faithful saying he has this or that non-political experience, but that’s what they’ve said about so many other people who came before who also had no chance. Remember Chewie’s adamant defense of Herman Cain?
That fat NJ governor has no chance because 1) He’s fat; 2) He’s a dick. I like him as NJ governor, but he’ll never get elected in the general.
Jindal is all over the place. Sometimes he’s eloquent and sometimes he sounds like a total idiot-problem is that idiot pieces often get published in major press pieces.
Romney pt III is the Democrats’ wet dream. He got beaten by more votes and more electoral votes than McCain. Every Dem is praying for this one.
Paul Ryan: Dems would love this too. He has economic ideas that just don’t work and the dems could easily rehash 2012 mistakes he made. Plus there has never been a congressman elected president directly from the House. Paul Ryan won’t be the first.
Scott Walker: Similar to Ryan in general politics, but has more of a shot as an 8 year governor. He’s shown real political savvy and survival skills. I don’t think he has a chance in the general though.
Jeb Bush: Probably the best possible candidate for the general election vs Clinton. I don’t know how he wins the primaries without going so far to the right that he pushes himself out of the general election, though. I hated his brother, but there is something likable about Jeb. I still don’t think he beats Clinton, though. A third Bush (when his own mother says there shouldn’t be one) vs a second Clinton? I think Clinton wins.
As for the Dem candidates? Clinton is the only one that matters and while there might be one candidate who is a player (think Bill Bradley vs Gore), no one can beat her this time. I think this is too bad because I really can’t stand her for the same reasons I hate Romney. They are cut from the same cloth-will say anything to win, every word drips of fake BS, and so rehearsed that you can’t really eek out any real personality. Gross. I’m not looking forward to 2016 at all!
[quote=“Cooperations”]By this time next year, we’ll have a huge field of Republican candidates. Only one or two will have a shot at the general election, of course, but that won’t stop the others. I think if Republicans want any shot at the White House, they’ve got to start separating the serious candidates from the complete jokers. Here’s my list of least to most likely nomineess:
Santorum will never be president and he adds nothing to the party-he’s a throwback to a time that never existed. I doubt he could be elected anything but dog catcher in the most Catholic district of PA-in fact, that might be a good job for him considering he still believes that gay marriage somehow leads to bestiality.
Huckabee, just Santorum with a smile. He seems like a nice guy, but have you ever seen his show? He’s another loser who will keep trying.
Ben Carson has no chance. Sorry. I know there will be tons of party faithful saying he has this or that non-political experience, but that’s what they’ve said about so many other people who came before who also had no chance. Remember Chewie’s adamant defense of Herman Cain?
That fat NJ governor has no chance because 1) He’s fat; 2) He’s a dick. I like him as NJ governor, but he’ll never get elected in the general.
Jindal is all over the place. Sometimes he’s eloquent and sometimes he sounds like a total idiot-problem is that idiot pieces often get published in major press pieces.
Romney pt III is the Democrats’ wet dream. He got beaten by more votes and more electoral votes than McCain. Every Dem is praying for this one.
Paul Ryan: Dems would love this too. He has economic ideas that just don’t work and the dems could easily rehash 2012 mistakes he made. Plus there has never been a congressman elected president directly from the House. Paul Ryan won’t be the first.
Scott Walker: Similar to Ryan in general politics, but has more of a shot as an 8 year governor. He’s shown real political savvy and survival skills. I don’t think he has a chance in the general though.
Jeb Bush: Probably the best possible candidate for the general election vs Clinton. I don’t know how he wins the primaries without going so far to the right that he pushes himself out of the general election, though. I hated his brother, but there is something likable about Jeb. I still don’t think he beats Clinton, though. A third Bush (when his own mother says there shouldn’t be one) vs a second Clinton? I think Clinton wins.
As for the Dem candidates? Clinton is the only one that matters and while there might be one candidate who is a player (think Bill Bradley vs Gore), no one can beat her this time. I think this is too bad because I really can’t stand her for the same reasons I hate Romney. They are cut from the same cloth-will say anything to win, every word drips of fake BS, and so rehearsed that you can’t really eek out any real personality. Gross. I’m not looking forward to 2016 at all![/quote]
I’d love to see a GOP Bush-Nikki Haley ticket 
No one can beat Clinton? I’m guessing her age may be a liability (can she stay healthy?) and I expect a challenge from the progressive wing of the Dims with Elizabeth Warren. Obama spoiled Clinton’s crowning in 2008 and Warren may do the same. 
[quote=“Cooperations”]By this time next year, we’ll have a huge field of Republican candidates. Only one or two will have a shot at the general election, of course, but that won’t stop the others. I think if Republicans want any shot at the White House, they’ve got to start separating the serious candidates from the complete jokers. Here’s my list of least to most likely nomineess:
Santorum will never be president and he adds nothing to the party-he’s a throwback to a time that never existed. I doubt he could be elected anything but dog catcher in the most Catholic district of PA-in fact, that might be a good job for him considering he still believes that gay marriage somehow leads to bestiality.
Huckabee, just Santorum with a smile. He seems like a nice guy, but have you ever seen his show? He’s another loser who will keep trying.
Ben Carson has no chance. Sorry. I know there will be tons of party faithful saying he has this or that non-political experience, but that’s what they’ve said about so many other people who came before who also had no chance. Remember Chewie’s adamant defense of Herman Cain?
That fat NJ governor has no chance because 1) He’s fat; 2) He’s a dick. I like him as NJ governor, but he’ll never get elected in the general.
Jindal is all over the place. Sometimes he’s eloquent and sometimes he sounds like a total idiot-problem is that idiot pieces often get published in major press pieces.
Romney pt III is the Democrats’ wet dream. He got beaten by more votes and more electoral votes than McCain. Every Dem is praying for this one.
Paul Ryan: Dems would love this too. He has economic ideas that just don’t work and the dems could easily rehash 2012 mistakes he made. Plus there has never been a congressman elected president directly from the House. Paul Ryan won’t be the first.
Scott Walker: Similar to Ryan in general politics, but has more of a shot as an 8 year governor. He’s shown real political savvy and survival skills. I don’t think he has a chance in the general though.
Jeb Bush: Probably the best possible candidate for the general election vs Clinton. I don’t know how he wins the primaries without going so far to the right that he pushes himself out of the general election, though. I hated his brother, but there is something likable about Jeb. I still don’t think he beats Clinton, though. A third Bush (when his own mother says there shouldn’t be one) vs a second Clinton? I think Clinton wins.
[/quote]
No mention of Marco Rubio or Rand Paul?
I think that Jeb Bush would be very competitive in a general election. I’m less certain he could win the GOP primary, particularly since the recent rule changes have the Southern primaries coming soon after Iowa. A more conservative candidate could build potentially build momentum. Still, 70% of the GOP delegates are from outside of the old Confederacy, so Jeb has a good chance.
I agree that Warren could pose a serious challenge to Clinton, but she’s expressed no interest whatsoever in running. In fact, she’s already endorsed Clinton. Hillary isn’t going to have any serious competition for the nomination. I think that Hillary needs to come up with a really good reason to run. She needs a serious and specific agenda, one that will both fire up the base and appeal to the general electorate. She also needs to figure out how to bring working class whites back to the Democratic party, while simultaneously energizing the party’s growing Latino base. Hillary immediately endorsed President Obama’s executive action on immigration, which shows a decisiveness lacking from her first campaign. But that won’t be enough. She’ll need a platform speaking directly to Hispanic Americans if she’s going to win the general. Doing that, while calling out to working class whites in the Midwest is going to be her biggest challenge. Showing unwavering support for a bigger minimum wage would appeal to all working class voters, regardless of ethnicity.
I think it’s going to be Bush vs. Clinton again, which will be fun. I’m curious who they’ll pick to join them on their tickets. If Bush picks Rubio, he’ll have Florida in the bag. They’re both fluent in Spanish and that would help their ticket in the Southwest too. Clinton needs to pick a Hispanic running mate who will appeal to young voters across the ethnic range. A lot of people dismiss the Castro brothers (Julian and Joaquin) for being too young and inexperienced, but I think either would confound those low expectations and would be a great pick. Julian Castro is the HUD Secretary and Joaquin is a House representative. Julian gave the keynote speech at the 2012 DNC, and he’d be my first choice. Beyond those two, I really like Deval Patrick, the Mass. governor.
Clinton vs. Bush – again? Maybe it’s time to put a fork in U.S. politics now that it’s devolved into a cheap banana republic franchise starring washed up political dynasties.
Political dynasties can produce great leaders. Consider the Tafts, Roosevelts, and Kennedys. Not all political dynasties result in corruption or incompetence.
Here’s an interesting fact about those two. If either were to be nominated for president or vice president, they’d be ineligible to simultaneously run for re-election to the Senate. Not due to federal law but the state laws of Florida and Kentucky. That would be a big risk to take, since if they stay in their current positions, they could be in the Senate indefinitely. Rubio may be a little more vulnerable because Florida is a swing state, but Paul could stay in the Senate for decades in deep red Kentucky.
Here’s an interesting fact about those two. If either were to be nominated for president or vice president, they’d be ineligible to simultaneously run for re-election to the Senate. Not due to federal law but the state laws of Florida and Kentucky. That would be a big risk to take, since if they stay in their current positions, they could be in the Senate indefinitely. Rubio may be a little more vulnerable because Florida is a swing state, but Paul could stay in the Senate for decades in deep red Kentucky.[/quote]
I personally think they would both be stupid to run at this stage, but I think Rand is more likely to run-he’s his father’s son and I expect he will have as much of a chance. After the Republican’s hit Obama hard on his experience, running two one-term Senators would be a bit of a problem, imo. I think Rubio should wait and challenge for 2020-he’s doing just fine where he is for now and he’s going to get destroyed on immigration.
I don’t think anyone poses a real challenge to Clinton for the Dem nomination, including Warren. I don’t see her losing the general either. The demographics for the Dems are just way too favorable for the Dems and it would take a monumental shift for any of the Republican candidates to beat her. Romney found that out the long, hard, expensive way.
[quote] “First, Palin embarked on an extended stream-of-consciousness complaint about media coverage of her decision to run in a half-marathon race in Storm Lake, Iowa in 2011. She then moved on to grumbling about coverage of a recent photo of her with a supporter who had made a sign saying ‘F*** you Michael Moore’ in reaction to the left-wing moviemaker’s criticism of the film ‘American Sniper.’ Then it was on to Palin’s objections about the social media ruckus over a picture of her six-year-old son Trig standing on the family’s Labrador Retriever.
“It was all quite petty, and yet the complaining took half of Palin’s allotted time.”
Okay, everyone’s a critic. But York’s Iowa reporting is far more damaging:
“‘Long and disjointed,’ said one social conservative activist when asked for reaction. ‘A weird speech,’ said another conservative activist. ‘Terrible. Didn’t make any sense.’ [/quote]
foxnews.com/politics/2015/01 … prospects/
rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/sara … is-is-war/
Conservatives finally realise something about Palin that everybody else has known since October 2008.
This definitely was not a good weekend for Republicans if they want to have any chance at the White House. Jeb Bush was smart enough to stay away from that circus showing he is the only serious candidate out there. I mean, why would someone go to anything hosted by Steve King? There is probably no greater idiot in Congress.
The whole thing was embarrassing to watch. I wish I had time to go back through all the threads where people here were accused of being sexist when pointing out that Palin is an idiot. Clearly, only other idiots now think she’s not an idiot. Here is her failed attempt at ‘fixing’ the situation:
[quote]Hannity noted that “a lot of people” — even her strongest supporters — had criticized Palin’s performance. Palin didn’t respond to Hannity directly, instead taking a swipe at the media and saying she doesn’t read the praise or criticism.
Read more: politico.com/story/2015/01/s … z3QAndZoaj[/quote]
[quote]“I know she is popular, but it is hard to take her seriously given that performance,” said Sam Clovis, the conservative Iowa college professor, radio commentator, and sometime political candidate. “Palin was a sad story Saturday. With every speech she gives, she gets worse and worse. If one were playing a political cliche drinking game, no one would have been sober after the first 15 minutes of an interminable ramble. It was really painful.”
“Calling Gov. Palin’s remarks bizarre and disjointed would be charitable,” said a well-connected Iowa Republican. “Her shelf-life, even with the most conservative voters in our party, seems to be near the end. In a day filled with strong performances from likely candidates ranging from Scott Walker to Ted Cruz, her remarks were a distraction.”
“It was a long and incoherent speech,” added Craig Robinson, of the Iowa Republican blog. “At best, there were a few good one-liners.” Robinson continued:
Of all the people I talked to about Palin’s speech, only one person didn’t have a negative reaction. That person basically said it was a typical Sarah Palin speech. It was received poorly by everyone else I spoke with. I’m not comfortable sharing everything I heard about the speech — it was that bad.
No offense to Gov. Palin, but I do think it is problematic to have someone give a speech like that in the midst of a string of serious speeches by people who are seriously thinking about running for president. Palin made a guy like Trump look like a serious presidential candidate today. Incredible.
washingtonexaminer.com/as-20 … le/2559245[/quote]
Most people seem to think that Palin and Trump are only in this for publicity and know they don’t’ have a chance to win, but it’s great publicity to keep their ratings up for whatever idiotic TV show they have running. So that’s where America has gone… crazy people with money using presidential elections as publicity stunts. The other possibility is worse-that they actually run and get any level of support. I have to say, I’ve never seen a group of people with so little chance of winning the White House who think they have a chance at winning the White House. The Republican party is out of control-where is the leadership to shut down people who do nothing but damage the party?
I don’t have a horse in this race, but if the Dems keep it together while the Republicans continue their circus throughout the cycle, the election will be a no contest. I think the most likely outcome is that Clinton locks her nomination early and Bush is being chased by the nucking futters of his party until the last possible moment. Like Romney, he will lose a lot of states because the Republican party is completely disjointed. The Republicans with no chance will hurt the eventual nominee during the primaries and the Clintons will just come in with their machine and finish the job.
I think Scott Walker improved his chances, and could be a reasonably likely candidate. He’s telling the base what they want to hear: “We can win without all that namby-pamby big-tent compromise stuff”- and he’s got a record to show it.
The Anointed One may order her campaign to stand down:
politico.com/story/2015/01/e … ml?hp=t4_r
[quote]Advisers said the biggest reason for the delay is simple: She feels no rush.
[/quote]
What difference, at this point, does it make?
[quote=“rowland”]The Anointed One may order her campaign to stand down:
politico.com/story/2015/01/e … ml?hp=t4_r
[quote]Advisers said the biggest reason for the delay is simple: She feels no rush.
[/quote]
What difference, at this point, does it make?[/quote]
Well, it is Politico, aka Tiger-Beat-on-the-Potomac; ‘insider’ trivia is what they do for a living.
[quote] In his new role as the unofficial conduit for leaks and trial balloons from Hillaryland, Politico’s Mike Allen allows as how HRC is “strongly considering” a delay in her formal announcement for the presidency from April til July.
…
So the question is: does anybody really care when Hillary Clinton announces she will run? Mike Allen does, and he’ll continue to focus his snail’s-eye view on such dubious matters as the precise day and hour.
[/quote]
washingtonmonthly.com
As you pointed out, Hillary is the Anointed One, so all those Inside-the-Beltway gossip columnists posing as reporters have to write something to justify their salaries and expense accounts over the next two years. This scoop was undoubtedly given as ‘deep background’ by some insider at whatever is the latest ‘in’ spot for lunch, so both participants can be seen and talked about by the other Important People.
Further proof that Scott Walker speaks to the soul of the Stupid Party:
Hey Scott, if it works for professors, it might work for billionaires.
[quote=“Gao Bohan”]
I agree that Warren could pose a serious challenge to Clinton, but she’s expressed no interest whatsoever in running. [/quote]
You should tell the BBC that. 
I think she’ll reconsider. Would enjoy watching a Clinton-Warren battle.
[quote=“ChewDawg”][quote=“Gao Bohan”]
I agree that Warren could pose a serious challenge to Clinton, but she’s expressed no interest whatsoever in running. [/quote]
You should tell the BBC that. I think she’ll reconsider. Would enjoy watching a Clinton-Warren battle.
bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31062739[/quote]
Sadly, it ain’t gonna happen. Warren would only even threaten to get in if it proved necessary to curb Hillary’s longstanding Clintonesque love for wall Street; and with even the Mittster weeping crocodile tears over the lot of the serviles, Hillary will realise that at least rhetorical solidarity with the unwashed masses is required.