Who wins 2016 Presidency?

[carlfense]

 

Barring an economic downturn/unforeseen scandal get used to saying President Clinton again.

 

Can't say that I'm excited about that.

 

I can't imagine she could possibly be worse than Bush or drastically worse than Obama. I think she's likeliest pick. She's the most popular, experienced, and probably wealthiest candidate in the field. Her biggest political rival in New Jersey went and committed suicide over a bridge. The rest of the GOP field looks about as useless as the last group of clowns. If Rand Paul is seriously one of your party's top contenders, you have a problem.

 

Marco Rubio had a chance to be respected, but his flipflop on his own immigration bill is a little staggering and frightening. You hope that your candidate, whoever it is, has some balls and shows leadership. He should be ruthless with his own base. In fact, that's the whole game right there. Whatever you think of the democrats, they at least have a way of converging on important issues (healthcare, immigration, climate change) and working to address them. The so-called "conservative Republicans" haven't had an idea outside of going to war and cutting taxes in twenty years. When they do have an idea--blue moon territory--they're promptly shut down by the mental patients that form the conservative base and forced to backtrack. To be a Republican in the modern sense of the word is to 1) deny reality, 2) oppose any plan that deals with reality (especially if Obama is within a hundred miles of it), and 3) fail to generate a single policy idea that the whole party, let alone America, can get behind.

 

Oh, I think that she would/will be alright. It's just somewhat depressing to me that the choice might come down to the wife of a former president or ANOTHER Bush.

 

Is this really the best that we have to offer? Make no mistake, unless the GOP suddenly regains it's sanity (not going to happen any time soon) I'll grudgingly vote for her.

[TGHusker]

Cruz, Rand Paul, Rubio, Cristie Cream, and Bush get the headlines but I wouldn't be surprised if a hard working gov like Walker or Pence sneak up to the top (if they can get the finances). Why - because they have a record of accomplishments. The establishment repubs won't allow Cruz and Rand to get the nomination and the Tea Party side won't allow Cristie and Bush to secure it. I can see an eventual consensus around a conservative, action oriented governor who has proven that he can administrate and lead & get things done. I don't think Perry will be forgiven for his failures last time around. Rubio, may be a VP pic of either a conservative or moderate repub. I think most Repub voters want fresh faces and not the next in line which gave the repubs McCain and Romney.

 

I do not believe Hillary is a shoe in once nominated. Obama's approval rating is pretty low -not GWB low but too low to have coat tails like Reagan gave Bush Sr - and that is not good for any dem candidate. Also," Do we really want all of the Clinton baggage again??" will be one of the questions in voter's minds.

 

I hope the electorate will be looking for a leader which we haven't really had since Reagan - he saw the best in all and brought many different coalitions together. I'm not sure there is one in either party. But within the year we'll see if one develops and steps forward.

[The Dude]

Barring an economic downturn/unforeseen scandal get used to saying President Clinton again.

 

Can't say that I'm excited about that.

Probably. Glancing at the list in the OP's link, I think it's kind of difficult to become terribly excited over any outcome.

[carlfense]

Pssst. Reagan would be driven out of the current Republican Party.

 

Put aside the nostalgia for a moment and actually look at his record. No way in hell could he win the GOP nomination.

[JJ Husker]

 

edit- And there was still some semblance of journalistic integrity in the 80's.......those days are long gone.

Sort of like when George Will helped Reagan prepare for his debate using stolen materials . . . and then appeared on ABC as a journalist without disclosing that he was a paid political advocate?

 

That sort of journalistic integrity? Come to think of it . . . he's still at it.

 

Sure, you can pick and choose some exceptions but, generally speaking, journalism was much better back in the day than it is now.

[TGHusker]

 

 

Barring an economic downturn/unforeseen scandal get used to saying President Clinton again.

 

Can't say that I'm excited about that.

 

I can't imagine she could possibly be worse than Bush or drastically worse than Obama. I think she's likeliest pick. She's the most popular, experienced, and probably wealthiest candidate in the field. Her biggest political rival in New Jersey went and committed suicide over a bridge. The rest of the GOP field looks about as useless as the last group of clowns. If Rand Paul is seriously one of your party's top contenders, you have a problem.

 

Marco Rubio had a chance to be respected, but his flipflop on his own immigration bill is a little staggering and frightening. You hope that your candidate, whoever it is, has some balls and shows leadership. He should be ruthless with his own base. In fact, that's the whole game right there. Whatever you think of the democrats, they at least have a way of converging on important issues (healthcare, immigration, climate change) and working to address them. The so-called "conservative Republicans" haven't had an idea outside of going to war and cutting taxes in twenty years. When they do have an idea--blue moon territory--they're promptly shut down by the mental patients that form the conservative base and forced to backtrack. To be a Republican in the modern sense of the word is to 1) deny reality, 2) oppose any plan that deals with reality (especially if Obama is within a hundred miles of it), and 3) fail to generate a single policy idea that the whole party, let alone America, can get behind.

 

Oh, I think that she would/will be alright. It's just somewhat depressing to me that the choice might come down to the wife of a former president or ANOTHER Bush.

 

Is this really the best that we have to offer? Make no mistake, unless the GOP suddenly regains it's sanity (not going to happen any time soon) I'll grudgingly vote for her.

 

Amen to this Carl. See we can actually agree. I don't think I could bring myself to vote for Hillary however - regardless. So, I'd be in a real dilemma if it came down to Bush/Clinton - maybe they can be on one ticket together and we can have a real choice of the anti- candidate.

[TGHusker]

Pssst. Reagan would be driven out of the current Republican Party.

Put aside the nostalgia for a moment and actually look at his record. No way in hell could he win the GOP nomination.

Again I agree wt you Carl. Sometimes a leader needs to be pragmatic and do a little 'giving' in this give and take game of politics. Reagan knew when to give. Our current Pres does not but also it seems the leading mouth pieces for the repubs don't either. Too many ideologues out this. This is also where I see a diff between Bill and Hill. Bill knew how to play the political game - yes he came into office and bit off more than the public wanted him to chew - thus the 1994 congress and Newt. After that, he played ball and he and Newt got a lot done. I don't see Hillary being as pragmantic - she is more of a 'true believer' like Obama - with low tolerance for compromise. Cruz would be that way on the repub side and perhaps Rand Paul (but not as irritating to listen too) - that is why I lean towards a governor - you don't get much accomplished as a governor if you are an ideologue unless your state legislature is full of like minded ones as well.

[JJ Husker]

Pssst. Reagan would be driven out of the current Republican Party.

Put aside the nostalgia for a moment and actually look at his record. No way in hell could he win the GOP nomination.

Unfortunately you are correct and that is why the current Republican party is comprised of the buffoons that it is.

[carlfense]

 

 

edit- And there was still some semblance of journalistic integrity in the 80's.......those days are long gone.

Sort of like when George Will helped Reagan prepare for his debate using stolen materials . . . and then appeared on ABC as a journalist without disclosing that he was a paid political advocate?

 

That sort of journalistic integrity? Come to think of it . . . he's still at it.

 

Sure, you can pick and choose some exceptions but, generally speaking, journalism was much better back in the day than it is now.

 

Maybe. I think that some of the difference is that we used to base our opinions on the same facts. We existed in the same reality, etc.

 

Now there are entire closed realities (using that term loosely) where people can get all of their info without ever experiencing contradicting facts.

[NUpolo8]

Hmmm, there seems to be a consensus it's coming down to a Bush and a Clinton.

 

[tschu]

 

Reagan was a leader; he was also a moron when it came to spending and economics and the country will take decades to recover

This is it. He was a leader. I believe that is what the office requires more than anything. Congress is supposed to be in control of spending and economic policy, the President is supposed to lead and be Presdential. Where are those guys/gals at nowadays?

 

And so I suppose you credit Congress with passing Obamacare? Why is it called Obamacare and not CongressCare? The President has a lot of power over the direction that his party takes in Congress and general direction of policy. Not too much power, but the president often is able to convince his members of congress to draft and pass legislation that he feels is important.

[NUinID]

 

 

Nothing in this thread has convinced me that Richard Nixon's head wouldn't be our best option.

 

You know, you can say what you want about Nixon, but he was a really good at foreign policy. He just was a paranoid that everyone was out to get him. I bet if you looked back at many administrations and their has been a lot of Watergate style stuff. He just got caught.

[QMany]

McCain got blasted for his age during the 2008 race. Hillary is only a couple years younger, so that could be a possible issue as well.

Hillary Clinton is ELEVEN years younger than John McCain. McCain is past the US male life expectancy now, while Clinton wouldn't even get close to the US female life expectancy during a potential Presidential term.

[knapplc]

Who wins 2016 Presidency?

 

Elizabeth Warren

[NUance]

 

 

 

Nothing in this thread has convinced me that Richard Nixon's head wouldn't be our best option.

 

You know, you can say what you want about Nixon, but he was a really good at foreign policy. He just was a paranoid that everyone was out to get him. I bet if you looked back at many administrations and their has been a lot of Watergate style stuff. He just got caught.

 

 

Yeah, I can think of 1.3 billion people who would agree with you about Nixon's skills in foreign policy.

 

Plus he plays an vital recurring role on that awesome animated series, Futurama. :