TGHusker Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Could this guy be the surprise candidate in 2016 as Obama was in 2008 - the anti-Hillary ? Besides talk of Liz Warren on the far left, Jim Webb could be the person 'in between' Hillary and Warren - all 3 being left of center. For those Dems who are weary of Hillary (and - her support of the evolving Obama 'war ' effort per the article) perhaps he could be the attractive alternative. A guy who likes both Reagan and FDR. His odds are pretty steep now, but who knows what could happen on the road to the nomination. I don't have a pony in that race, but thought this might be an interesting possibility. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jim-webb-former-senator-from-va-takes-on-his-partys-hawks-and-maybe-clinton/2014/09/28/ba12f572-43f1-11e4-9a15-137aa0153527_story.html Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Warren isn't running. Webb probably is. The nominee will still almost certainly be Hillary. The media can't handle that kind of certainty . . . so expect many more trumped up stories about the non-Hillary candidate who will totally shake up the race. This is nothing like 2008. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted September 30, 2014 Author Share Posted September 30, 2014 Warren isn't running. Webb probably is. The nominee will still almost certainly be Hillary. The media can't handle that kind of certainty . . . so expect many more trumped up stories about the non-Hillary candidate who will totally shake up the race. This is nothing like 2008. I agree on the 'media can't handle that kind of certainty'. I would probably agree that Hillary probably has it 'locked up' and it is her's to lose - I do expect some challengers however, Biden, Webb, and even Jerry Brown may do the irrational thing - maybe someone else who's ego is big enough to think they can beat out Hillary. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Well, this could get really interesting. One thing I know is that it is way too early to predict who is going to win any nomination. It seems like every Presidential election, there is one main front runner and by the time the convention comes around, that person isn't standing on stage with confetti falling on their head. On top of that, the Dems have won the last two elections being very anti war. Well, it sure feels like they are going against their own campaign rhetoric and propaganda recently. Clinton is right in the middle of that and any Dem who has supported the President is also tied to that. There are a lot of liberals who are very very anti war. There are also a lot of independent/middle of the road voters (like me) who are tired of all the military crap we have been in over the last 10 years. The trick for him is: He needs to have good sound ideas other than just antiwar. He also needs to be antiwar without being viewed as a completely anti-military/anti-defend ourselves candidate. That is how he is going to be painted by his competition. There is room for a candidate who supports our military, understands ultimately we need to defend ourselves if necessary, but thinks we need to stay out of these foreign campaigns when we haven't been attacked. Most Dems thought that is what they were getting with Obama. Hmmmm....guess not. Link to comment
darkhorse85 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 I would definitely vote for Webb. Fun fact: I actually met Webb's son in Iraq. His unit did a relief in place of my unit when we we're heading back home. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted September 30, 2014 Author Share Posted September 30, 2014 Well, this could get really interesting. One thing I know is that it is way too early to predict who is going to win any nomination. It seems like every Presidential election, there is one main front runner and by the time the convention comes around, that person isn't standing on stage with confetti falling on their head. On top of that, the Dems have won the last two elections being very anti war. Well, it sure feels like they are going against their own campaign rhetoric and propaganda recently. Clinton is right in the middle of that and any Dem who has supported the President is also tied to that. There are a lot of liberals who are very very anti war. There are also a lot of independent/middle of the road voters (like me) who are tired of all the military crap we have been in over the last 10 years. The trick for him is: He needs to have good sound ideas other than just antiwar. He also needs to be antiwar without being viewed as a completely anti-military/anti-defend ourselves candidate. That is how he is going to be painted by his competition. There is room for a candidate who supports our military, understands ultimately we need to defend ourselves if necessary, but thinks we need to stay out of these foreign campaigns when we haven't been attacked. Most Dems thought that is what they were getting with Obama. Hmmmm....guess not. I agree - repubs may even be open. He may end playing the Reagan strategy in reverse (Blue dog dems and union members that voted for Reagan). Many repubs, including me, are tired of the neo-cons running the show, we are also tired of the war drums. If we need to do something wt our military, do it quickly wt an exit strategy and only in what is truly in our interests. At this stage there is no overwhelming repub candidate. Now Webb vs R. Paul may be interesting. Link to comment
T_O_Bull Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Could this guy be the surprise candidate in 2016 as Obama was in 2008 - the anti-Hillary ? Besides talk of Liz Warren on the far left, Jim Webb could be the person 'in between' Hillary and Warren - all 3 being left of center. For those Dems who are weary of Hillary (and - her support of the evolving Obama 'war ' effort per the article) perhaps he could be the attractive alternative. A guy who likes both Reagan and FDR. His odds are pretty steep now, but who knows what could happen on the road to the nomination. I don't have a pony in that race, but thought this might be an interesting possibility. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jim-webb-former-senator-from-va-takes-on-his-partys-hawks-and-maybe-clinton/2014/09/28/ba12f572-43f1-11e4-9a15-137aa0153527_story.html They nominated McGovern, Carter, and Dukakis didn't they? The process that is used to nominate a candidate alows lousy nominees all the time. Unfortunately Carter also won the election. T_O_B Link to comment
Hedley Lamarr Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 I would definitely vote for Webb. Fun fact: I actually met Webb's son in Iraq. His unit did a relief in place of my unit when we we're heading back home. So he understands what it is like having a child serving in Iraq? That alone makes him a viable candidate IMO Link to comment
Recommended Posts