The 2016 US Presidential Primaries Begin!

Couple of things worth updating in this thread:

First, everyone's favorite Southern belle Lindsey Graham announced an exploratory more folksy testing-the-waters committee for a 2016 presidential bid. Sounds like he's seriously contemplating running, or just has the vapors. Senator Graham is very close to the John McCain camp in the GOP, very hawkish on foreign policy.

Democratic Party
Jim Webb (former VA-Sen)

Republican Party
Jeb Bush (former FL-Gov)
Lindsey Graham (SC-Sen)

A few others have strongly and publicly announced interest, including three familiar faces: Mitt Romney (has jumped in the last two weeks to fight Bush for donors, and aggressively), Rick Santorum (who, as JR points out, is acting like a candidate without a committee or formal campaign), and Mike Huckabee (who quit his show, seems to be seriously putting together a campaign but hasn't announced). They will be put on the list when they announce a committee, but I expect that to happen relatively soon.

Second, we might see several candidates announce after April 1st to avoid first quarter donor disclosure to their exploratory committees. There is a good chance if candidates don't announce early, say, by February 1st, they will probably wait until April for this reason.

Unless they just don't care about the donor disclosure thing.
 
And who is going to beat her? Jeb Bush?

He thinks so. Or Romney, or Rand Paul, or Scott Walker, or Chris Christie, or Ted Cruz, etc. The list of Republicans that think they can beat Hilary is lengthy. You may not grasp how widely Mrs. Clinton is despised. Rush Limbaugh once made her is Man of the Year.

UVa did a new list of GOP possibilities. Bush is on the top tier (the was none before), but he should not be called a front runner. More along the lines of the establishment candidate, which says quite a bit by itself.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-president/

J
 
I think people would be willing to stomach another Clinton before they stomach another Bush. I doubt Romney will even get out of the primary. He's lost twice already. Once in the primary and once in the general.
 
I think people would be willing to stomach another Clinton before they stomach another Bush. I doubt Romney will even get out of the primary. He's lost twice already. Once in the primary and once in the general.

We will see. I think it is fair to say that the Republican party considers Hillary an open door to the White House. Eight years ago, that would not have been true, but that was then. Now the unpopular President is of her party.

Republicans have been coming back for more since forever--Nixon in 1960 and 1968, Reagan in 1976 and 1980, Bob Dole ran six times. You can go much further back. That said, I agree with you. One quip, "He's been around the track so often he's muddy."

Democrats eat their failed candidates, which is one reason I doubt Hillary will get the nomination. Still, the anti-Hillary has not emerged yet.

J
 
Hillary isn't nearly as unpopular with the country as a whole as the ditoheads would like to believe.
 
UVa did a new list of GOP possibilities. Bush is on the top tier (the was none before), but he should not be called a front runner. More along the lines of the establishment candidate, which says quite a bit by itself.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-president/

J

Sabato's GOP tier is interesting--the leading 2nd tier candidates (especially when Bush was in that mix) were all "establishment" fellows and Rand Paul. We'll talk more about those fellows when and if they actually move to the exploratory phase, though.

I think people would be willing to stomach another Clinton before they stomach another Bush. I doubt Romney will even get out of the primary. He's lost twice already. Once in the primary and once in the general.

I lean a bit towards this, just because Hillary will be able to spin herself as the first Rodham and first woman, whereas Bush is still the third Bush. And people will be reminded of that connection constantly through the primaries: remember George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism, education reform, and more immigration-friendly stances? Think about what Jeb Bush has on the table: moderation on immigration like the act of love comment, common core for education policy, he's an establishment money guy like his brother was in 2000, and so on. Yes, they are both sorta dynasty candidates, but I think Clinton can get the upper hand on that argument.

At least so far as base turnout is concerned, and that's a big part of electioneering. Even McCain got nearly 60 million votes, the loser in the next election likely will as well.
 
People have generally liked Bill, he was pretty popular. They have good memories from the 1990s, the 2000s and bush --- not so much.

Walker could be our first president with a college degree in quite some time.
 
Sabato's GOP tier is interesting--the leading 2nd tier candidates (especially when Bush was in that mix) were all "establishment" fellows and Rand Paul. We'll talk more about those fellows when and if they actually move to the exploratory phase, though.

They were in the tier largely because they were establishment candidates, as much as anyone is. The ones further down still need to establish a support base. One state or the Tea Party is not going to be enough.

Bill Clinton was not the worst of Presidents. When Newt ran the House and Clinton ran the White House, we had some budget sanity for a while. Since that situation exists now, we will see how President Obama plays the hand. So far, no one seems to be impressed, but reduced deficits are almost a given.

J
 
They were in the tier largely because they were establishment candidates, as much as anyone is. The ones further down still need to establish a support base. One state or the Tea Party is not going to be enough.

What I was commenting on there was that Rand Paul was considered the equal of the top-tier establishment favorites who usually end up winning the nomination (at least, in the last couple decades). I think he's probably the non-establishment fellow who has the best chance of upsetting the eventual establishment favorite...

...assuming he runs. After all, he hasn't taken the golden step of an exploratory committee-esque move that puts him in the definitely running category.

Bill Clinton was not the worst of Presidents. When Newt ran the House and Clinton ran the White House, we had some budget sanity for a while. Since that situation exists now, we will see how President Obama plays the hand. So far, no one seems to be impressed, but reduced deficits are almost a given.

That might be better discussed in a different thread. ;)
 
What I was commenting on there was that Rand Paul was considered the equal of the top-tier establishment favorites who usually end up winning the nomination (at least, in the last couple decades). I think he's probably the non-establishment fellow who has the best chance of upsetting the eventual establishment favorite...assuming he runs. After all, he hasn't taken the golden step of an exploratory committee-esque move that puts him in the definitely running category.

Rand Paul is MUCH more mainstream than his father. That said, you have a point.

If I were to pick a darkhorse it would be Ted Cruz. As a Texan I have more than the usual exposure. This is a guy everyone loves to hate, but he will make you think.

About the other, point taken.

J
 
The only thing Ted Cruz usually makes me think about is how much I'd like to punch Ted Cruz. Every time I've seen him on TV he's come across as a smarmy used car salesman type.
 
The only thing Ted Cruz usually makes me think about is how much I'd like to punch Ted Cruz. Every time I've seen him on TV he's come across as a smarmy used car salesman type.

That is not the impression I get. Have you ever seen more than a short clip? Cruz will start with classical references and walk you through a whole thought process, but you don't get that in a sound bite.

J
 
If we get Bush/Clinton, I am so done with this country. I doubt we'll get that combo though.

Also, I'm not sure Jindal will be able to justify cutting Louisiana's college education budget in half (convincingly anyway), so I'd count him as not likely to win. Out of a $1.6b budget, the university systems are now operating at about $900m, with another $200-300m cut possible in the near future.
 
If we get Bush/Clinton, I am so done with this country. I doubt we'll get that combo though.

Also, I'm not sure Jindal will be able to justify cutting Louisiana's college education budget in half (convincingly anyway), so I'd count him as not likely to win. Out of a $1.6b budget, the university systems are now operating at about $900m, with another $200-300m cut possible in the near future.

At least Bush/Clinton is an easy choice. I have my doubts. Democrats rarely nominate a front runner. The exceptions tend to be Vice Presidents.

I heard a discussion today on the impact of Bush and Romney on the other potential candidates. The point was fundraising. In 2012 Romney was able to avoid all the infighting because of his infrastructure. This time, he would fight with Bush and possibly Christie for that fund pool. The deep pockets will force fringier candidates to commit soon, but the playing field will be much more level overall.

J
 
At least Bush/Clinton is an easy choice. I have my doubts. Democrats rarely nominate a front runner. The exceptions tend to be Vice Presidents.
The "easy choice" is insurrection if this is the ticket. We shall surely get the lowest voter turnout in history -- more people will vote for the next American Idol winner than for both combined.

This is a sham of a "democracy" if all we can put up are two halves of the same coin: old Bush money v. old Rodham money.
 
The "easy choice" is insurrection is this is the ticket. We shall surely get the lowest voter turnout in history -- more people will vote for the next American Idol winner than for both combined.

This is a sham of a "democracy" if all we can put up are two halves of the same coin: old Bush money v. old Rodham money.

"The "easy choice" is insurrection is this is the ticket." Is that a sentence? What do you mean?

More likely the highest turnout. As I said, I don't see it happening

J
 
"... if this is the..." He just got one letter wrong. CUT OLD PEOPLE SOME SLACK!
 
"... if this is the..." He just got one letter wrong. CUT OLD PEOPLE SOME SLACK!

I'm 46, I'm not old! :p



Thank you.

As Churchill said, democracy is the worst choice, except for the alternatives.

J
Churchill also said: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

THAT being said, thanks to state legislators canceling provisions of the Voting Rights Act, gerrymandering districts to keep incumbents in, we really don't have a democracy, anyway.

If Christie and Paul make a run, Republicans lose to whoever the Dems come up with.

If Jeb Bush makes a run, then there are few who can beat him.

If Ben Carson runs, its possible that a 35 year-old female librarian from Marion, Ohio could beat him as a write-in.
 
Top Bottom