I realize this is still quite early but I'm curious as to whom ya'll would like to see in/win the 2016 Presidential election (Rubato I have taken you off ignore cause believe it or not I am interested in your choice also).
Personally, I feel the nut jobs in the tea party have hurt the GOP to the point that if they win this election it would border on miraculous. Having posted that my choice comes as no surprise it would be Huckleberry if he would come of his radio gig, which he actually seems to enjoy. Beyond that I haven't a clue.
Re: Your 2016 hopeful
Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 8:27 pm
by rubato
Rick wrote:I realize this is still quite early but I'm curious as to whom ya'll would like to see in/win the 2016 Presidential election (Rubato I have taken you off ignore cause believe it or not I am interested in your choice also).
Personally, I feel the nut jobs in the tea party have hurt the GOP to the point that if they win this election it would border on miraculous. Having posted that my choice comes as no surprise it would be Huckleberry if he would come of his radio gig, which he actually seems to enjoy. Beyond that I haven't a clue.
I didn't know I was on "ignore" and don't care either way. If your opinions are so fragile that they cannot stand comparison then perhaps they deserve to be thrown out?
I have no rooting interest in one candidate in the 2016 election so far. The GOP have behaved so badly for so long that they have little chance of running anyone who isn't neutered first (McCain) or a serial liar (Romney). They are wrong about everything and at war with themselves.
The religious right aligns with the left on Illegal Immigration and opposes the GOP party line.
The GOP denies evolution.
The GOP denies global warming.
The GOP caused the worst economic collapse in 80 years and still have not said what they learned from it.
The GOP supported the war in Iraq. And still have not said what they learned from it.
The GOP supported the sequester.
The GOP supported the shutdown. (how stupid was it to try the same thing that failed for Newtie Gingrich?)
The GOP created the deficit (from a surplus) and now think deficits are wicked.
The GOP, via "citizens united", did more harm to U.S. democracy than the Russians ever did.
If the GOP are successful in 2016 we will be weaker, poorer, and less free in 2020 just as we were weaker and poorer after 8 years of Bush. The first two consecutive terms in which the median income went down since the great depression.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Your 2016 hopeful
Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:04 pm
by Lord Jim
Even though I think that what's going on with Christie at the moment is grossly unfair, when I put on my Political Realist Hat, even if he comes back from this, the polls show that his numbers have tanked the hardest with Independent voters; folks who thought he could represent a genuine bi-partisan approach...The platform upon which his candidacy was built was his ability to attract those folks...
At the moment; I don't see how he gets that back...
My first pick now would be Jeb Bush...
Competent, articulate, thoughtful, with a great record of success as Governor of Florida (to this day polls have him as the most popular political figure in the state) and probably my party's strongest candidate to stand against Hillary, (and for me, it's all about "who can we run that can beat Hillary".)
Jeb has sufficient conservative bonafides that he can pull in a lot of the right while at the same time not having to pander to them. I have no concerns about him not being able to overcome "the George thing" at this point; when you look at Jeb, you don't see George...(The mainstream liberal media will of course try to hang that around his neck...they're going to be in the tank for Hillary...but I don't see it washing with the public at large.)
He also has the potential to bring in a much better portion of the Hispanic vote then we have had in the past two Presidential elections, and that's really what's needed to provide the margin of victory...
Re: Your 2016 hopeful
Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 10:52 pm
by Guinevere
Grossly unfair? Talk about hypocrisy.
If she runs, and I'm still not 100% convinced she will, I will be working for and voting for HRC.
Re: Your 2016 hopeful
Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:14 pm
by Rick
If HRC runs it's doubtful my wife would work for her but there is no way anyone could talk her out of voting for her.
Like Christie trying to get past the "Bridge" debacle the Hill is gonna have to get past Benghazi. I really don't think that is going to "just" disappear...
Re: Your 2016 hopeful
Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:28 pm
by Lord Jim
and I'm still not 100% convinced she will,
You know, I've seen a number of liberal pundits all sing the same tune:
"Well, I've talked to people really close to Hillary, and they say she's not sure she's going to run..."
Oh brother...
This is the third time I've seen this play...
The first time was before her first senate run: "Well I don't think she's made up her mind..."
And then again before her first Presidential run: "She hasn't really decided to do it.." (and then her announcement speech video comes out with trees in the background of her house with fall foilage; indicating it was recorded four months earlier )
And now we're getting this song and dance a third time...
The people "close to Hillary" say "she hasn't made up her mind" because that's what Hillary wants them to say....
They're helping her with her timing...
At the same time others are raising money and putting together independent organizations "calling" on her to run...
That doesn't happen by accident; the game plan here is clearly for Hillary to announce sometime late in the year in response to this (orchestrated) "groundswell"....
If I needed any more proof that Hillary is running in 2016, (which I didn't; I assumed it all along) I got it shortly after she left as Sec. Of State...
At that time, the party line coming from people "close to Hillary" was, "Well, she's worked really hard, she's not even thinking about that; she just wants to put her feet up for a while and relax"...
It couldn't have been more than three weeks later that she popped up making a speech, having lost the Ben Franklin hairdo, in favor of a stylish new coiffure, (and also probably having lost about 20 pounds) with a complete makeover...All of which fairly shouts,"I'M RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!"
And she's been out making policy speeches ever since...
So when considering the question of whether or not Hillary is running, I'm confronted with a version of the old Groucho Marx dilemma:
"Who should I believe? those 'close to Hillary' or my lying eyes?"
Re: Your 2016 hopeful
Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:42 pm
by Guinevere
It's not a play, its my informed opinion based on what I have heard and more importantly what I have not heard from all of the folks I worked with on her last campaign - mostly the financial folks.
Re: Your 2016 hopeful
Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:54 pm
by Lord Jim
Though as I said before if my party nominates Rand Paul, I'll not only vote for Hillary, I'll setup RepublicansforHillary.com, and raise money and bring in volunteers to help get her elected...I'll become an activist for Team Hillary...
Given what I think of Hillary, that ought to tell you what I think of Paul....
My absolute nightmare 2016 scenario would be for the GOP to nominate Paul, and the Dems to nominate Elizabeth Warren...
At that point I'd give serious consideration to pulling up the whole family lock stock and barrel and emigrating..
Even to some Godforsaken place like Canberra...
Though I prefer living closer to the ocean...
Uladulla looks nice:
Just throw another shrimp on the barbie mate, hand me a warm flat beer, and let's kick back with some cricket on the telly...
Re: Your 2016 hopeful
Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:55 pm
by Jarlaxle
Anyone except Romney, Hillary, or Christie. If it's Christie against Hillary...I will probably go on a three-day bender. I would vote for Rand Paul in a second...would reluctantly vote for Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush.
At least by then, for the first time ever, my vote might matter!
Re: Your 2016 hopeful
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:14 am
by Lord Jim
Huge ‘Super PAC’ Is Moving Early to Back Clinton
The Obama political operation that once buried Hillary Rodham Clinton’s White House ambitions is now rapidly converging around her possible 2016 presidential bid, conferring on Mrs. Clinton enormous early advantages in money, expertise and voter targeting techniques.
On Thursday, Priorities USA Action, a “super PAC” that played an important role in helping re-elect President Obama, announced that it was formally aligning itself with Mrs. Clinton and would begin raising money to fend off potential opponents for 2016.
The group — the largest Democratic super PAC in the country — also named new directors, appointments that will cement the group’s pro-Clinton tilt and thrust veterans of Mr. Obama’s political and fund-raising operation into the center of the post-Obama Democratic Party.
The move is perhaps the earliest start to big-dollar fund-raising in support of a nonincumbent presidential candidate, providing a fund-raising portal for wealthy Clinton supporters eager to help her White House prospects — and to the legions of others eager to ingratiate themselves with Mrs. Clinton and her inner circle.
Jim Messina, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager in 2012, who has forged close ties with many Democratic donors, will serve as co-chairman of the revamped super PAC and an affiliated nonprofit, along with Jennifer M. Granholm, the former Michigan governor, who is among the most persistent voices calling for Mrs. Clinton to enter the 2016 race.
Mr. Messina joins a growing list of Obama veterans aligning themselves with Mrs. Clinton: Jeremy Bird and Mitch Stewart, for example, who led Mr. Obama’s field efforts in 2012, are working closely with Ready for Hillary, a pro-Clinton super PAC that is focused on recruiting small donors and building lists of grass-roots supporters.
Priorities, by contrast, has begun seeking six- and seven-figure checks to power major advertising expenditures in support of Mrs. Clinton — including, if necessary, responses to attacks by Republicans and conservatives in advance of a formal campaign declaration. (Like all super PACs, the group would be barred from coordinating spending and strategy with Mrs. Clinton if she entered the presidential race.)
“I think the numbers clearly show that she’s the strongest presidential candidate on the Democratic side,” Mr. Messina said in an interview. “And Priorities is going to be there for her if she decides to run.”
Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said of Priorities: “While they are an independent entity acting on their own, their enthusiasm is flattering. In the end though, only she can make that very personal decision, and as she has said, she won’t be doing so anytime soon.”
Mr. Messina is now the highest-profile member of Mr. Obama’s inner circle to openly back Mrs. Clinton for president, a move that can only fuel perceptions that Mrs. Clinton’s potential candidacy has the tacit endorsement of Mr. Obama himself.
Donors and others involved with Priorities said that they would look to far surpass the $67 million that Priorities spent on attack ads against Mitt Romney during the 2012 election. Those ads — including the “coffin ad,” featuring workers laid off from a plant acquired by Bain Capital, Mr. Romney’s former firm — helped define Mr. Romney early in the campaign, a blueprint the group hopes to use on Mrs. Clinton’s prospective Republican opponents.
Guin, do you figure these movers and shakers are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, or out of some pure idealistic adoration of Hillary?
They wouldn't be involved in this if they weren't gettin' the high sign behind the scenes...
This routine Hillary's running, (for the third time) reminds me of the old Milton Berle bit...(and no I'm not old enough to have seen it when it was originally broadcast... )
Where Uncle Miltie would come out at the the start of his show, and while the audience was applauding he'd raise one hand to gesture for them to stop, while having his other hand down by his side, gesturing for them to keep going...
Re: Your 2016 hopeful
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:40 am
by Lord Jim
I would vote for Rand Paul in a second.
My big problem with Paul are his neo-isolationist, anti-defense and anti-national security views. When it comes to national defense and national security, if we're going to nominate Rand Paul, we might as well nominate Dennis Kucinch...
If the GOP nominates Rand Paul, it will no longer be the party of a strong national defense; and after nearly four decades as stalwart Republican, who has held his nose a number of times to vote for candidates who I didn't think much of, (I even voted for Michael Huffington) out of party loyalty, Paul would be a bridge too far, and I would leave the party.
That doesn't of course mean that I would join the party where they define reducing a government subsidy as a "tax increase" and call letting people keep more of their own money a "giveaway"....
Nor would I join any of the current crop of kookaboo third parties currently on offer...
I would have no party. (And that's unfortunate, because I love to party... )
.would reluctantly vote for Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush.
I really can't stomach Cruz because I consider him to be nothing but a cynical manipulative self-promoting phony who doesn't really believe in or care about anything beyond his own personal enrichment and aggrandizement...(sort of a Senatorial version of Rush Limbaugh)
But your mention of Jeb kind of goes to my point...
You and I come from different places on many issues, but we could both support Jeb...
Which is precisely the kind of candidate that is needed...
Re: Your 2016 hopeful
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 2:21 am
by Jarlaxle
I really can't stomach Cruz because I consider him to be nothing but a cynical manipulative self-promoting phony who doesn't really believe in or care about anything beyond his own personal enrichment and aggrandizement...
In other words: he's a politician.
I wouldn't really support Jeb...he's just not Hillary.
I would support (in fact: I would campaign for) Rand Paul.
Re: Your 2016 hopeful
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 3:55 am
by Lord Jim
I would support (in fact: I would campaign for) Rand Paul.
Probably for the same reasons I'd vote for Hillary over him....
My second choice after Bush would probably be John Kasich...
A very bright fellow who I'm familiar with going back to his days in Congress...(A Bush-Kasich ticket wouldn't be a bad idea...Yes, they're two white guys, but they're two white guys from Florida and Ohio....)
I could support Scott Walker, I'm not as familiar with him as I am with Kasich, but after the way he handled the recall, he seems very politically adept....
Of the potential candidates from The Hill, I've already said what I think of Paul and Cruz...
I could conceivably support Marco Rubio, but he just doesn't seem quite ready for Prime Time...(better as a VP pick; maybe paired with Kasich....Ohio and Florida again...)
The only other one from congress I could support is Paul Ryan, who again like Jeb Bush has that quality where his conservative credentials are so well established that he doesn't have to pander, which leaves him free to take a more responsible middle course to appeal to the electorate...
But I'm not sure Ryan has the chops to take on The Clinton Machine...
Aside from Jeb who certainly does, Kasich might, but I don't think any of the others I've mentioned really do...
Christie certainly could have; he was my original first choice, but as I've said, even though from an evidentiary standpoint every "revelation" that's been tossed out against him so far looks like hot air, and provides proof of nothing, from a political standpoint he's really become damaged goods...
Re: Your 2016 hopeful
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:05 am
by Jarlaxle
Since he supports amnesty, Rubio is no better than Hillary. (If anything, he's worse.) I honestly think that Jeb Bush is unelectable because of his name.
Re: Your 2016 hopeful
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:33 am
by Lord Jim
I honestly think that Jeb Bush is unelectable because of his name.
I disagree Jarl...
The press would play it up at the outset, but I think very early on in the campaign that monkey would be off his back...
He doesn't look anything like George, he doesn't sound anything like George, he was never a part of George's Administration, and he's got a very successful record of his own to run on. (George blew it on Katrina; Jeb successfully managed Florida through four major hurricanes in two years; part of the reason why he still has such enduring popularity in the state. ) He has sufficient gravitas that early on in the campaign people would start to focus yea or nay on him on his own merits.
Re: Your 2016 hopeful
Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:15 am
by MajGenl.Meade
Oh sorry - I thought this was a thread about the Denver Broncos.
Never mind
Re: Your 2016 hopeful
Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:20 pm
by Long Run
You all are writing off Christy too soon. The bridge closure will be old news by the time the real campaigning starts; sort of like Benghazi will be old news and won't seriously impact HRC, who, of course, is going to run (barring some unforeseen bad health news or political disaster).
Re: Your 2016 hopeful
Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:58 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
LI congreessman Peter King has visited the primary states (NH and Iowa). Talk is he's testing the waters.
LordJim, come join us non-partiers. There is a better life out here. Don't you want to be among us who all the pols want to woo?
Wouldn't you like to be woooed by Hillary?
of course living in the places we do, any knid of rightish leaning is buried under by the shear volume of the city liberal votes
Re: Your 2016 hopeful
Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:01 pm
by Scooter
In keeping with tradition that it is always a complete loon who is the first one in the presidential race, King has already declared.
Re: Your 2016 hopeful
Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:01 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
Thanks for that scooter, I missed that. I remember him saying he was considering a run and flying up to NH.
When I read it again he said
he’s there “because right now I'm running for President.”
And when he gets back to LI he's not running for pres?
I guess he has to say something to the NH-ites to keep them interested in him. Can't say he's up there just for lunch or getting cheaper cigarettes and booze.