The 2016 US Presidential Primaries Begin!

Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
15,602
Well, it's been going on for awhile, right? The book tours, the deft dodges in interviews, the repeated appearances in early primary states, that all means the invisible primary is in full swing, right?

Yep.

But we've entered a new phase because the first potential presidential candidate, a Democrat, has formed an exploratory committee to consider running. And that person is... Jimothy McWebbers! Err, Jim Webb. Who is he again?

Well, I'll just link to the TMZ of politics, Politico, and let them tell ya:

Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb became the first well-known Democrat to launch an exploratory committee to run for president on Wednesday night, saying the nation is at a “serious crossroads.”

“I have decided to launch an Exploratory Committee to examine whether I should run for President in 2016,” Webb said in a four-page letter on his website, Webb2016.

...

The Vietnam veteran added, “A strong majority of Americans agree that we are at a serious crossroads. In my view the solutions are not simply political, but those of leadership. I learned long ago on the battlefields of Vietnam that in a crisis, there is no substitute for clear-eyed leadership.”

Webb, who was Ronald Reagan’s Navy secretary and who has held centrist views on a number of issues, has been bolstered by progressive news outlet The Nation as a potential challenge from the left to Hillary Clinton, the dominant front-runner who hasn’t yet said if she will launch a second national campaign.

“With enough financial support to conduct a first-class campaign, I have no doubt that we can put these issues squarely before the American people and gain their support,” said Webb, acknowledging his underdog status against a likely Clinton fundraising juggernaut.

So he's a centrist who worked for Reagan that wants to challenge Hillary Clinton from the populist left...

Link to video.

So the list of candidates that are currently running or at minimum have formed an exploratory committee is...

Democratic Party
Jim Webb (former VA-Sen)

Republican Party
-none yet-



Also not in the threads but I wanted to stick in the current playing field for these candidates. Florida looks like it is behaving this year, but New York has reverted to a February primary date and North Carolina's voter ID law jumped its primary up to match South Carolina. Additionally, Colorado, Minnesota, and Utah all reserve the option to jump into February according to current state law but are more likely to go later. Currently, it looks like Texas, Florida, and Virginia are going on Super Tuesday with Oklahoma and Tennessee, so it's going to be a South-heavy day like it originally was. So the 2015 calendar looks like this at the moment (source):

Iowa Caucuses - Jan. 18th
New Hampshire Primaries - Jan. 26th
New York Primaries - Feb. 2nd
Nevada Caucuses - Feb. 6th
South Carolina Primaries - Feb. 13th
North Carolina Primaries - Feb. 16th
Michigan Primaries - Feb. 23rd
Super Tuesday ("SEC"-heavy including FL, TX, OK, TN, VA) - Mar. 1st



(NOTE: Thread marked [RD] to keep it on 2016 presidential candidates announcing exploratory committees, official campaign announcements/filings with the FEC on running for president, information on states and primaries that don't always get their own threads, etc. And let's not put in every whacko perennial candidate on wiki, I guess the minimum to be included is being at least as recognizable and serious as... Jim Webb or John Bolton? All that being said, snarking on the candidates per regular thread rules is encouraged.)
 
This is the thing where a small % of Americans from a couple hand-selected states decide who is going to be running for president from the 2 main parties?

Forgive me, I've asked this sort of question before. But keeping track of the political goings-on in multiple countries isn't easy.
 
This is the thing where a small % of Americans from a couple hand-selected states decide who is going to be running for president from the 2 main parties?

Forgive me, I've asked this sort of question before. But keeping track of the political goings-on in multiple countries isn't easy.

Effectively yes. The early primary and caucus states have a lot of influence on who gets media attention, who shapes the narrative, who receives campaign donations, etc., so they have an outsized impact on the process, far more than you would expect from the number of delegates they ultimately provide to the convention.

Especially so in the caucus states, where only a relative handful of members registered with the parties can vote. Primaries are either closed to just party members, or open in the sense that independents or members of other parties can pick one primary election to vote in. Because of this, they also have more participants than caucuses.

(Side note: the number of delegates each party sends to the convention is determined by the national parties and is a function of the population in the state, proportion of votes they gave the party in the prior presidential elections, number of state-elected officials from the state, and senior members of the party in each state may be automatic delegates. Oh, the federal district and the territories also receive a small number of delegates along similar lines as well.)
 
I'm glad i live under a Westminster system where we don't go through all this. The leader of the country is decided by the party that is in control of parliament. The cost of a presidential election has gone through the roof.
 
Ah yes, it's that time of election season when I rage at the democrats for putting forth nothing but spineless weasels while simultaneously raging at the republicans for continuing to kow-tow to the tea-party whackos. Should be plenty of thrills, laughter, and tears during this election season.
 
Antilogic, thanks for the writeup.

What about other parties? Do they not get involved at all? Would it be pointless or something?

The other parties are always around, but they are never given any attention in mainstream media and have budgets that make the two major parties just laugh so generally speaking they don't have a snowball's chance in hell. The media attention bit is the worst, most American's would rather watch The Real Housewives than pretend to care about politics, so the majority of the population won't even know who the third party candidates are.
 
They are ptepping us for amother Clinton-Bush showdown...

And I thought we gave up on monarchies...

I was thinking of another Gore-Bush meltdown. We already got our Bill Bradley!

Antilogic, thanks for the writeup.

What about other parties? Do they not get involved at all? Would it be pointless or something?

WB has it right. To add a little: some minor parties also have caucuses and primaries, but generally only one candidate runs for those parties' nominations and there is so little media attention it's normally taken as a given who it is. Alternatively, they might not have a primary at all but rather name their candidate through a direct vote at a convention (which is how the Democrats and Republicans used to do it before the 1970s or so).

Personally, I think it is pointless for third parties to run for the presidency because they would have to win outright to actually take the presidency. If they deadlock the electoral college (i.e. no candidate has a majority), then the state delegations to the House determine who the president is and thus one of the two major parties (right now, the GOP) wins by default. I think third parties and independents should be focusing on winning local races up to House and Senate seats to build a bench of people who could conceivably run for president, build a solid political organization that can compete on the national level, and have some influence in case the electoral college gets deadlocked.
 
A third party that managed to win at least one state could plausibly throw the election to one or the other major party by instructing their electors to vote for one or the other, right? That could be a plausible reason to run besides just running to gain recognition for whatever issues they're promoting, but they'd probably have to have a very narrow regional focus (like Wallace in 1968, although hopefully in all other ways they would not be like Wallace in 1968 ;)) to have a shot at winning even a single state.
 
A third party that managed to win at least one state could plausibly throw the election to one or the other major party by instructing their electors to vote for one or the other, right? That could be a plausible reason to run besides just running to gain recognition for whatever issues they're promoting, but they'd probably have to have a very narrow regional focus (like Wallace in 1968, although hopefully in all other ways they would not be like Wallace in 1968 ;)) to have a shot at winning even a single state.

It's not quite that easy, at least not in the modern era. Electors are pledged to cast their votes for the candidate's name on the ballot, and failing to do so, even at the request of said candidate, could trigger faithless elector laws in the states. These are usually fines and/or jail time, but it varies by state and indeed several states don't have them.

But the reason why Wallace was such a powerful player in 1968 was that he could also command the loyalty of the Dixiecrats in the House. Thus, if the electoral college was deadlocked, he would still have some chips on the table once the election went to the House. No modern third party candidate, whether Perot or Nader or one of the less successful ones, has had that kind of backup.
 
I thought Ben Carson was officially in, but apparently he is just at the losing-his-job-at-Fox-News stage of formally entering the race.
 
:lol:

I'd suspect we only have a couple more, likely low-profile announcements this year. I figure the big profile candidates will start their exploratory committees right after the New Year and be officially running in the March to June range. Especially the governors who were just reelected, they aren't going to announce now.
 
I'm ready to cast my vote for Theodore Roosevelt/Theodore Roosevelt.

Anyways, I'm excited for the next season of the Presidential elections. The last time we had a lot of great drama and comedy especially during the republican primaries, so I hope this season it's the same sort of quality entertainment we've had for years. :mischief:
 
From the UVa site:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-president/

First Tier
Empty

Second Tier
Jeb Bush↓
Rand Paul↑
Paul Ryan

Third Tier
Marco Rubio
Ted Cruz↑
Scott Walker↓
Chris Christie↓
Rob Portman↑
John Kasich
Bobby Jindal
Rick Perry↑
Rick Santorum

Wild Cards?
Mitt Romney↑
Mike Huckabee
Mike Pence
Ben Carson

First Tier
Hillary Clinton

Second Tier
Joe Biden↓

Third Tier
Martin O’Malley

Would Only Run If Hillary Clinton Doesn’t
Elizabeth Warren↑
Kirsten Gillibrand
Amy Klobuchar
Andrew Cuomo↓

Wild Card?
Jim Webb
Senator (Ind.), VT

This is from Labor day, so the ebb and flow is a bit dated.

J
 
Of the ones mentioned, the only one who
a) is not -visibly- crazy
b) i actually at least have heard of him/her

would be Rand Paul. But i doubt he will be the nominee.
 
Sanders/Warren :mischief:

Of the two, Warren has remained pretty adamant about running although people are saying her dodges have shifted from "hell no!" to "I don't think so."

Sanders might be closer to a formal declaration given the greater number of campaign trips to early primary states, but he hasn't switched his party registration to (D) and he has promised to not run as a third party spoiler. So it does not seem likely either will formally announce before the end of the year.

Sanders is on a bit of time crunch because he has to switch parties. Some states prohibit a candidate from appearing on the ballot unless they have been registered for the party for at least a year, and there are still petition signatures to collect.


While interesting, I suggest we focus this thread on the field of candidates who have formally declared they are running as opposed to who the forecasters might predict. There are definitely a few names on that list we expect to run, they aren't quite there yet.

would be Rand Paul. But i doubt he will be the nominee.

If he runs (and he has a problem in his home state with getting an LBJ law), he could be a formidable candidate. The most recent activity was a massive meeting with advisers and his possible campaign manager following the 2014 election, but there is no news indicating it is a formal exploratory committee.
 
Top Bottom