The 2016 US Presidential Primaries Begin!

[dutchfire]

Paul vs. Hillary could reshape the electoral map in a way that hasn't happened since Nixon. It could also end in a Democratic walkover. It really depends on the issues the election is going to be about. I could see an anti-intervention, anti-espionage Paul getting the upper hand, especially if there are some Snowden-like leaks, or foreign policy incidents at just the right point in the campaign. In that case, Paul has a chance with groups like young voters that typically go D.

If the campaign is all about economy, you get a totally different election though.

 

[onejayhawk]

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.

I disagree with this, because the serious candidates will postpone tossing in the hat. To use and old phrase, there is a difference between not running and not-running. Howard Dean is not running. Hillary Clinton is not-running.

J

 

[Antilogic]

Paul vs. Hillary could reshape the electoral map in a way that hasn't happened since Nixon. It could also end in a Democratic walkover. It really depends on the issues the election is going to be about. I could see an anti-intervention, anti-espionage Paul getting the upper hand, especially if there are some Snowden-like leaks, or foreign policy incidents at just the right point in the campaign. In that case, Paul has a chance with groups like young voters that typically go D.

If the campaign is all about economy, you get a totally different election though.

The list of serious battleground states will be jumbled quite a bit by those two, if they ultimately run.

Building on the official announcement theme of the thread, it was noteworthy that "Ready for Hillary" is winding down and the leaders there are being jumbled around, likely into an official campaign structure. So we might see an official announcement soon on an exploratory committee.

I disagree with this, because the serious candidates will postpone tossing in the hat. To use and old phrase, there is a difference between not running and not-running. Howard Dean is not running. Hillary Clinton is not-running.

J

I'm well aware of that, made note of it in the first paragraph of the OP. But we have the because we have a problem thread for that sort of stuff. This thread is for when they get the courage to officially toss their hat in.



So, from what I have gathered from recent news articles and OnTheIssues, here is a partial list of Jim Webb's positions:

• Split immigration record: voted against the Bush-era immigration bill in 2007 but yes on the 2009-2011 DREAM Act, voted to eliminate a guest worker program, also voted for English as official language of US (could be a negative in current Democratic primaries?)
• Background in marines, but somewhat anti-war, against intervention in Iraq, Libya, maybe Syria? (could be a plus against Hillary in a dovish party)
• Pro-military funding from wayyy back, though, quit Reagan administration over funding cuts to Navy (probably a plus with campaign donors)
• Pro-gun, has voted against registration law in DC and for the guns on Amtrak bill (could be a negative with the left)
• Focus on veterans' affairs and access to healthcare (makes sense given his background, can't see this hurting him)
• Related: voted for ACA, expanding Medicare, SCHIP, etc. (stance in line with most Democratic lawmakers, impact depends on whether he runs on it)
• Focus on criminal justice/prison reform (likely a big plus, old law and order crowd on the way out)
• Economic fairness, focus on both urban and rural poverty, prior statements on raising the minimum wage and taxes on millionaires (fits in well with the populist left crowd on this one)
• Only recently supports marriage equality ("evolved" with statement last month? However, has statements supporting civil unions back to 2006.)
• Split record on environmentalism, has gone against EPA regulating carbon (may hurt him with green-friendly Dems, could be a plus with some groups)
• Pro-choice, has supported Roe v. Wade (no surprise in the Democratic Party)
• Split record on NSA/security state issues, had voted for some PATRIOT re-authorizations and requiring FISA court warrants for domestic wiretaps (unsure how this will play out, depends on how prominent the issue is in 2016).
• In favor of unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other welfare issues (again, no surprise in the Democratic Party)
• Supreme Court - voted for Sonia Sotomayor (not a lot to base an analysis on here, but I think the Obama nominees are generally liked by the party)

For what it is worth, here is how OnTheIssues evaluates him based on his Senate career:

Spoiler :

 

[JollyRoger]

Webb is a fairly interesting mix. I could see voting for him in the primary. If he were sailing to the nomination, I wonder under what metrics the Republicans would brand him as the most liberal Senator ever (as is their tradition).

 

[Pangur Bán]

I remember the last primaries being so much fun, all those hilarious Republicans.

I trust it will be the same again. The automaton 'media' will feed Americans an extravagant pageant of 'stupidity', 'nuttery', and general deviance, before the Establishment candidates step in to save the day for 'moderation' and 'sense'. In the ensuing Punch and Judy show, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb will frighten their own supporters about other's views on a range of trivial issues; eventually the great unwashed masses will get engaged, mostly a few days before the great 'decision'. Finally a small number, selected from the most ignorant and disengaged of all, will vote one of the tweedles in according to how they feel that week, and all will congratulate themselves about their own superiority for having the power to choose a ceremonial figurehead. Behind the spectacle the beneficent job-giving herrenfolk will continue their reign, and the population they farm will return to the fields for another four years of profit making.

 

[onejayhawk]

Webb is a fairly interesting mix. I could see voting for him in the primary. If he were sailing to the nomination, I wonder under what metrics the Republicans would brand him as the most liberal Senator ever (as is their tradition).

No one will brand him as more liberal than Kerry and Dean.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No one will brand him as more liberal than Kerry and Dean.

J

So you think the Republicans would break from the tradition JR pointed out? According to the Republican rap they have run against the most liberal liberal ever every four years for as long as I've been alive. If the Democrats really had run a more liberal candidate than the last every single time I can't even imagine who they would have to run now.

 

[onejayhawk]

So you think the Republicans would break from the tradition JR pointed out? According to the Republican rap they have run against the most liberal liberal ever every four years for as long as I've been alive. If the Democrats really had run a more liberal candidate than the last every single time I can't even imagine who they would have to run now.

Bernie Sanders, but I digress. As usual, JR overstated things for effect, so there is no tradition to break.

Everyone will be painted as more liberal than they are, but that mirrors Democrats painting Republicans as more conservative than they are. Look at this forum. GW Bush is portrayed as a wing nut, when he governed as a militaristic centrist. Likewise, Barak Obama is portrayed as a red eyed radical. Equal amounts of rhetoric from both sides. Still, no one is portrayed as being left of John Kerry or Howard Dean.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Bernie Sanders, but I digress. As usual, JR overstated things for effect, so there is no tradition to break.

Everyone will be painted as more liberal than they are, but that mirrors Democrats painting Republicans as more conservative than they are. Look at this forum. GW Bush is portrayed as a wing nut, when he governed as a militaristic centrist. Likewise, Barak Obama is portrayed as a red eyed radical. Equal amounts of rhetoric from both sides. Still, no one is portrayed as being left of John Kerry or Howard Dean.

J

GWBush's failures have nothing to do with conservativism...but that doesn't mean he deserves any better than being called a wing nut. Quite the opposite in my opinion.

 

[onejayhawk]

GWBush's failures have nothing to do with conservativism...but that doesn't mean he deserves any better than being called a wing nut. Quite the opposite in my opinion.

Exhibit #1

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Note that that did not support your assertion that GWBush provides a good example of 'Democrats painting Republicans as more conservative than they are'. GWBush handing the government over to the neo-cons was such a disaster that it makes no difference how conservative he was.

 

[Cutlass]

The only conservative group that didn't get everything it wanted out of Bush was the Christian fascists. And that was only true because their goals were in conflict with the other conservative groups. So it's not at all accurate to say that Bush wasn't a wingnut conservative himself.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The only conservative group that didn't get everything it wanted out of Bush was the Christian fascists. And that was only true because their goals were in conflict with the other conservative groups. So it's not at all accurate to say that Bush wasn't a wingnut conservative himself.

I think you are confusing Republican with conservative. The Christian fascists, the neocon warmongers, and the conservatives all battle for control of the Republican party, using their even whackier fringe groups that share the 'one tent' as leverage. GWBush did throw a lot of bones to the conservatives, but mostly he sold them out to the neocon warmongers...who in many cases are not conservatives at all.

That's the problem when you elect a Republican. There's really no way to tell what kind of wingnut you are getting.

 

[Cutlass]

None of them are "conservative" at all. That's really the whole point. Not a single group currently associated with the Republican party has any concept of 'conserving' anything. They are all about throwing the baby out with the bathwater and starting over in their own image. But they also all have appropriated the descriptor 'conservative' to identify themselves.

The only real conservatives in American politics these days are Democrats.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

None of them are "conservative" at all. That's really the whole point. Not a single group currently associated with the Republican party has any concept of 'conserving' anything. They are all about throwing the baby out with the bathwater and starting over in their own image. But they also all have appropriated the descriptor 'conservative' to identify themselves.

The only real conservatives in American politics these days are Democrats.

Well, yeah. "Social conservative" sounds so much better than "Christian theocratist" and "neo-conservative" sounds so much better than "blood crazed warmonger". As to genuine conservatives, most of them have been run out since the 'one tent' turned into a badly run asylum, usually with RINO stamped on their forehead...so yeah a lot of us probably are democrats now.

 

[onejayhawk]

None of them are "conservative" at all. That's really the whole point. Not a single group currently associated with the Republican party has any concept of 'conserving' anything. They are all about throwing the baby out with the bathwater and starting over in their own image. But they also all have appropriated the descriptor 'conservative' to identify themselves.

The only real conservatives in American politics these days are Democrats.

That's all right. The Republicans are the classic liberals these days. Mill would blanch if he saw what Democrats propose. Single payer mandatory insurance, for example.

To give Republicans their due, border security and military preparedness are very much conservative ideals. So are balanced books, which is why GW Bush was not even a neo conservative. That was Dick "Darth" Cheney.

J

 

[Antilogic]

Wow, I'm quite surprised Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama are all forming exploratory committees to run for president in 2016, especially given a few of those are constitutionally prohibited from doing so.

Seriously, take it to another thread, or request a mod to move the posts.

(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.)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Wow, I'm quite surprised Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama are all forming exploratory committees to run for president in 2016, especially given a few of those are constitutionally prohibited from doing so.

Seriously, take it to another thread, or request a mod to move the posts.

There just aren't enough candidates yet, so a sort of general free for all kind of got the better of me. I will do better.

 

[Mouthwash]

Why can't we just abolish the states and do whatever Denmark is doing?

(In regards to the OP, I'm 95% sure Rand Paul is an ancap. So having him actually run would be disturbing to say the least.)

 

[Cutlass]

That's all right. The Republicans are the classic liberals these days. Mill would blanch if he saw what Democrats propose. Single payer mandatory insurance, for example.

To give Republicans their due, border security and military preparedness are very much conservative ideals. So are balanced books, which is why GW Bush was not even a neo conservative. That was Dick "Darth" Cheney.

J

Republicans these days reject everything the classical liberals stood for. That's just a sick joke they like to tell.