The Democratic Nomination

[onejayhawk]

for POTUS.


Hillary is the presumed nominee. However, the party has a long history of eating frontrunners. Will this election be different. Currently she is in a small scandal over an outside the lines email server. Here is a 538 article on that. Short answer, it is more an nuisance than a problem, but there has been a series of nuisance issues lately. Hillary is famous for not having much patience.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/5-lessons-on-the-clinton-email-scandal-from-political-science/

On the other possibilities front, we get crickets. Two names are Joe Bide, already past 70 and an athlete's tongue sufferer and Martin O'Malley, who is a moderate and widely considered a lightweight.

Everyone's favorite name, Elizabeth Warren, has said she will not run against Hillary. It is getting late to change her mind. That said, she could throw her hat in at the last minute and still ahve a shot at the NH primary.

For those that think I am a conservative, EW is someone I would consider supporting. For starters, she is both smarter and more human than Hillary. She is also much younger. Lest we forget, Hillary is 68 and looks older.

 

[Arwon]

Wait, why would how old someone looks matter to whether you support them?

 

[JollyRoger]

68 would put her on center end of the Supreme Court age-wise, so she could deflect the age question by pointing out how much younger she is than Scalia or Kennedy. Reagan was almost 70 when he took office and almost 78 when he left.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So, let me get this straight...this red diamond thread is really just a launching pad for "scandal flating" the non issue of this e-mail nonsense?

 

[JollyRoger]

No - it is also about ageism in America. You can't be approaching the age of the Fox News demographic and expect to get nominated, Reagan and McCain notwithstanding.

 

[Cutlass]

Assuming Hillary falters, and people think that she's vulnerable enough to challenge, it won't be Warren. I don't know if it will be Biden, he could go either way. Hard to say who it might be. Jim Webb? I don't really have a picture at this point of who the field is going to include.

 

[onejayhawk]

68 would put her on center end of the Supreme Court age-wise, so she could deflect the age question by pointing out how much younger she is than Scalia or Kennedy. Reagan was almost 70 when he took office and almost 78 when he left.

Reagan was the same age to within a few months (February to October). It was an issue for him, but he deflected with humor. Hillary does not have that option. Obviously, RR served eight years and did well, so it is no deal breaker.

I wonder how many SCOTUS Justices are first seated at this age.

J

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'd vote for Elizabeth Warren over Hillary. Too many Clintons too many Bushs. Unfortunately, I think Hillary is too determined to be the first woman president.

 

[JollyRoger]

I wonder how many SCOTUS Justices are first seated at this age.

J

In these day and age none, but it is expected (and hoped for by those nominating them) that they will serve well beyond 68.

 

[onejayhawk]

I'd vote for Elizabeth Warren over Hillary. Too many Clintons too many Bushs. Unfortunately, I think Hillary is too determined to be the first woman president.

I would vote for Warren over any of the Democrats and a number of Republicans. I would not vote for Hillary over any of the top 7-8 Republicans.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Assuming Hillary falters, and people think that she's vulnerable enough to challenge, it won't be Warren. I don't know if it will be Biden, he could go either way. Hard to say who it might be. Jim Webb? I don't really have a picture at this point of who the field is going to include.

I honestly don't see a challenger. To run you need two things; willingness to commit to a truly horrific process and the ability to convince people who pay for it that there is some chance of return on their investment. If you stand to gain something like national name recognition from the run you may submit to the process even without any chance of winning, and you may even be able to get funding, since nothing puts a Senator or Governor in your pocket like funding their presidential campaign.

But in the current case there is no one who has any real shot, and as far as I can tell no one who has anything to gain. Hillary is not only a pretty much mortal lock to win the nomination in 2016, she is also almost certainly running for reelection in 2020. There is nothing gained for the 2024 campaign by running against her in 2016. The prime real estate is getting named as her running mate, and that isn't going to be awarded in the primaries.

 

[onejayhawk]

The real point is that it is getting late to float trial balloons. If a candidate is both viable and interested, we should know by now.

J

 

[Birdjaguar]

Are there any Kennedy's anywhere who could run?

 

[Cutlass]

Are there any Kennedy's anywhere who could run?

No. The few Kennedys out there are too young and too low profile. It takes at least a senator or governor to have a reasonable shot at the nomination.

 

[downtown]

I don't think I'd consider O'Malley a moderate. He's pretty darn progressive and would probably run to the left of Hillary. That's probably the only room for a challenger.

I think Sherrod Brown would actually be a pretty interesting candidate, but I can't see anybody else raising enough money to seriously challenge Hillary, which sucks, because while she'll probably win (this email this is the sort of scandal that makes journalists really mad, but nobody else gives a crap), I personally find her brand of politics pretty gross.

 

[Sonereal]

I think the primary is really just for show at this point, because I can't imagine a scenario where Hillary doesn't snag the nomination without some kind of self-inflicted scandal breaking out between now and, say, New Hampshire, something this e-mail stuff is too small and wound up in procedure for the average American to really care about.

If Elizabeth Warren doesn't run this year, I can't really imagine when she could again. If a democrat wins the election and assuming that democrat runs again in 2020, the earliest Warren can run is in eight years, and she'll be about 73 by then. If a Republican wins the next election though, she probably could run in 2020.

I would vote for Warren over any of the Democrats and a number of Republicans. I would not vote for Hillary over any of the top 7-8 Republicans.

I mean, yeah. The point of populism is that it appeals to everybody.