2016 Election

T0001

Democratic Party:
Clinton vs. Biden

Republican:
Christie vs. Ryan


Nationally:
Clinton vs. Christie
Clinton vs. Ryan
Biden vs. Christie
Biden vs. Ryan

Out of each who would you vote for?

InTheTrees

Well we're pretty much confirmed Democratic Party supporters...even though I dont have a vote, my better half does and I'll be volunteering so I feel like I'm doing something.

I dont know about Christie or Ryan though. While I think Christie might possibly survive the bridge scandal, there's a lot of pundits who say he's all done and I'm inclined to agree. He was always going to be a considerable stretch for the White Southern Christian right wingers to accept. And Ryan? Maybe. He's already had one shot at VP and you dont usually get two so he could try for president but he's never really achieved anything, every "plan" he comes up with is ridiculed, his tax plans and his Healthcare plans were all rehashes of older ideas.

Amerika

Hillary Clinton hasn’t announced she’s running yet. If she does commit, even though she has tons of baggage, she’s set as the Democrat’s shoe in IMO. If she doesn’t run, I think Governor Andrew Cuomo (New York), and Governor Martin O'Malley (Maryland) have better shots on the democratic side than Joe Biden.
　
And on the GOP’s side, I wouldn’t count out former Governor Jeb Bush (Florida), Governor Scott Walker (Wisconsin), and Governor John Kasich (Ohio) quite yet.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Hillary Clinton hasn’t announced she’s running yet. If she does commit, even though she has tons of baggage, she’s set as the Democrat’s shoe in IMO. If she doesn’t run, I think Governor Andrew Cuomo (New York), and Governor Martin O'Malley (Maryland) have better shots on the democratic side than Joe Biden.
　
And on the GOP’s side, I wouldn’t count out former Governor Jeb Bush (Florida), Governor Scott Walker (Wisconsin), and Governor John Kasich (Ohio) quite yet.

I'm sticking with my prediction of Bush v Biden.

Biden to scrape it.

I can't see Ryan getting the nomination at all.

InTheTrees

I dunno about jeb bush.

I think he has some skeletons in his closet that he knows will come out. He's passed on two presidential elections so far which means he hasn't done anything since... 2008?

I dont think that would go down too well with the electorate.

Manach

Is it too early still to speculate? In that AFAIR from last time there was a Democratic challenger (Obama), he had left it late-ish before becoming a serious enough candidate to challenge the front runner that was Hillary Clinton.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

I'm sticking with my prediction of Bush v Biden.

Biden to scrape it.

I can't see Ryan getting the nomination at all.

Bush vs Biden??? :eek: Are you a betting man?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Bush vs Biden??? :eek: Are you a betting man?

I am. I'd take 4/1 about that, if you're offering.

Edit: forget that. I can get 33/1 from Paddy Power on a Biden win. Jeb Bush is 14/1

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

I am. I'd take 4/1 about that, if you're offering.

Edit: forget that. I can get 33/1 from Paddy Power on a Biden win. Jeb Bush is 14/1

LOL. What odds do you want that the only place we’ll get to a Bush vs Biden challenge is in the comic strips?

sin_city

I think Rand Paul has got a chance.

Don't know how bad things will get by 2016 but the worse they get, the better someone like Rand Paul would have.

Corkfeen

Brian? wrote: »

I'm sticking with my prediction of Bush v Biden.

Biden to scrape it.

I can't see Ryan getting the nomination at all.

Just could see a 73 year old getting the nomination. I love Biden particularly for the Paul Ryan debate but I just see his age working against him.

Brian?

Corkfeen wrote: »

Just could see a 73 year old getting the nomination. I love Biden particularly for the Paul Ryan debate but I just see his age working against him.

I'm sticking by Joe. He's brilliant.

In all seriousness though, I don't know who it'll be.

InTheTrees

Here's a Washngton Post story from yesterday. No surprise are regards Hillary's numbers but on the Republican side, its an interesting look at all the different cliques involved in the current power struggle, with no clear leader.

"The new survey puts Christie in third place — with the support of 13 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents — behind Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) with 20 percent and former Florida governor Jeb Bush at 18 percent. The rest of the scattered pack includes Sens. Ted Cruz (Tex.), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.), who are at 12, 11 and 10 percent, respectively."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-2016-hillary-clinton-has-commanding-lead-over-democrats-gop-race-wide-open/2014/01/29/188bb3f4-8904-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html

tipptom

Is Biden taken seriously enough to even have a chance of winning the Dem nomination?

Manach

Corkfeen wrote: »

Just could see a 73 year old getting the nomination. I love Biden particularly for the Paul Ryan debate but I just see his age working against him.

Fair point, but Regan has shown that age was not really a determing factor, but instead used it as a opportunity to showcase his experience - a factor that Biden could also utilise.

Amerika

tipptom wrote: »

Is Biden taken seriously enough to even have a chance of winning the Dem nomination?

IMO... NO! I’d say a lot of people view him as the lovable, crazy old uncle type, who "tends to go off the reservation" at times. He will be given a smidgen of consideration as respect for holding the office of VP though.

Keep a watch on Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin, on the GOP side. He has national name recognition from a recent battle in his state regarding collective bargaining, and in short order has turned a state in financial trouble to one with a $1 billion surplus that he intends to give back to the people who earned it.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

IMO... NO! I’d say a lot of people view him as the lovable, crazy old uncle type, who "tends to go off the reservation" at times. He will be given a smidgen of consideration as respect for holding the office of VP though.

A crazy old uncle type eh? That's a bit much. He's been in the Senate for a long time but seems to have made few enemies, even on the right.

That is until he spanked Ryan in the VP debate. He made Ryan look like a high school kid who's read a couple of books by Milton Friedman.

I'd put Biden up against any of the GOP possibles in a debate. He's far more savvy than you give him credit for.

In 2008 he played it perfectly against Palin as well. He could have humiliated her but knew it would make him look like a bully. So he played it safe and refused to be dragged into anything. It was a no win situation and he came out of it neutral, which was all he needed.

Keep a watch on Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin, on the GOP side. He has national name recognition from a recent battle in his state regarding collective bargaining, and in short order has turned a state in financial trouble to one with a $1 billion surplus that he intends to give back to the people who earned it.

Scott Walker gutted education and Medicaid spending. He also fought civil partnership for gay couples. He's your ideal candidate but none of that will play well nationally.

tipptom

Brian? wrote: »

A crazy old uncle type eh? That's a bit much. He's been in the Senate for a long time but seems to have made few enemies, even on the right.

That is until he spanked Ryan in the VP debate. He made Ryan look like a high school kid who's read a couple of books by Milton Friedman.

I'd put Biden up against any of the GOP possibles in a debate. He's far more savvy than you give him credit for.

In 2008 he played it perfectly against Palin as well. He could have humiliated her but knew it would make him look like a bully. So he played it safe and refused to be dragged into anything. It was a no win situation and he came out of it neutral, which was all he needed.



Scott Walker gutted education and Medicaid spending. He also fought civil partnership for gay couples. He's your ideal candidate but none of that will play well nationally.

I think Biden may be well liked because he has that old back slapping charm all right but I think you have even said it yourself that Ryan and Palin were easy targets for him and his handlers but when he is caught in the cross lights of being under questioning as the main man I think he will be found wanting.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Scott Walker gutted education and Medicaid spending.

How exactly did Scott Walker gut education and Medicaid?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

That is until he spanked Ryan in the VP debate. He made Ryan look like a high school kid who's read a couple of books by Milton Friedman.

I'd put Biden up against any of the GOP possibles in a debate. He's far more savvy than you give him credit for.

In 2008 he played it perfectly against Palin as well. He could have humiliated her but knew it would make him look like a bully. So he played it safe and refused to be dragged into anything. It was a no win situation and he came out of it neutral, which was all he needed.

Biden... Smooth perhaps, but definately not savvy!

I’ll give you Biden won the debate with Palin in the court of public opinion, but not for his debate performance on substance, which was nearly a draw IMO. Palin suffered in the court of public opinion because of her poor performance in interviews leading up to the debate, and admittedly her inexperience. The moderator Gwen Ifill didn’t help either in the objectivity category, as she was given too much leeway in choosing the questions, which IMO were geared to helping give credence to her upcoming book The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, and she failed to inform the debate commission of her upcoming book due to come out the day after the presidential inauguration, that would probably caused her not to be considered for the roll of moderator if the commission knew. And Biden scored big time with his story of the tragic car accident that claimed the life of his wife and daughter and injured his sons when he first started out in the Senate -- nothing to do with the debate issues. And the SNL paradoy of her right after the debate probably influenced people's opinion on the debate.

In the snickering Biden versus courteous Ryan debate, I think it was a draw. But if you look at opinions, many consider Ryan the winner. And if one considers Biden the winner, I think it was merely because Ryan refused to lower himself to Biden’s level and looked weak because of his refusal to play gutter politics.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Biden... Smooth perhaps, but definately not savvy![

VP and longest serving senator ever without being savvy. That's some work.

I’ll give you Biden won the debate with Palin in the court of public opinion, but not for his debate performance on substance, which was nearly a draw IMO. Palin suffered in the court of public opinion because of her poor performance in interviews leading up to the debate, and admittedly her inexperience. The moderator Gwen Ifill didn’t help either in the objectivity category, as she was given too much leeway in choosing the questions, which IMO were geared to helping give credence to her upcoming book The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, and she failed to inform the debate commission of her upcoming book due to come out the day after the presidential inauguration, that would probably caused her not to be considered for the roll of moderator if the commission knew. And Biden scored big time with his story of the tragic car accident that claimed the life of his wife and daughter and injured his sons when he first started out in the Senate -- nothing to do with the debate issues. And the SNL paradoy of her right after the debate probably influenced people's opinion on the debate.

For once you're right about media bias. The media tore Palin to shreds. But then how couldn't they? She was an abysmal candidate who was way out of her depth.

As I said the debate was almost a tactical draw because Biden was in a no win situation.

In the snickering Biden versus courteous Ryan debate, I think it was a draw. But if you look at opinions, many consider Ryan the winner. And if one considers Biden the winner, I think it was merely because Ryan refused to lower himself to Biden’s level and looked weak because of his refusal to play gutter politics.

Ryan lost that debate because Biden out thought him. Simple as that. The "brains" of the GOP was surprisingly shallow that night. Those deep in the right wing bubble are the only ones who thought Ryan won.

BTW Biden wasn't snickering. He was laughing out loud at Ryan and how easy he made it.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Those deep in the right wing bubble are the only ones who thought Ryan won.

Holy Cow... When did CNN, ABC and CNBC become part of the right wing bubble? How in the world did I miss such a monumental defection? Sheeeez... Nobody tells me nuttin!

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Holy Cow... When did CNN, ABC and CNBC become part of the right wing bubble? How in the world did I miss such a monumental defection? Sheeeez... Nobody tells me nuttin!

Wow. CNN, CNBC and ABC called the debate for Ryan? Really?

Nobody tells me nuttin.


Or you're making that up.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Holy Cow... When did CNN, ABC and CNBC become part of the right wing bubble? How in the world did I miss such a monumental defection? Sheeeez... Nobody tells me nuttin!

Why are you lying?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/debate-five-things-learned/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/vice-presidential-debate-2012-winner-joe-biden-paul-ryan-who-won-analysis-reaction-brazile-dowd-wallace-17459507

Get off my lawn!

Brian? wrote: »

A crazy old uncle type eh? That's a bit much. He's been in the Senate for a long time but seems to have made few enemies, even on the right.

No, I think that's fair, which is why the Joe Biden 'Trans Am' spoofs have legs. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but he's definitely like the fun uncle who taught you dirty limericks and slipped you $20 when you mom wasn't looking.

That said, I don't think he is going to get the nomination.

sawdoubters

Christie will not be running,he shut down a freeway to punish democrats,clinton will not run shes too old she will be 68
biden will be 73 he will not run ,ryan has 2 strikes hes catholic and republican



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/christie-continues-denying-bridgegate-knowledge-office-subpoenaed-article-1.1601117

Get off my lawn!

sawdoubters wrote: »

Christie will not be running,he shut down a freeway to punish democrats,clinton will not run shes too old she will be 68
biden will be 73 he will not run ,ryan has 2 strikes hes catholic and republican



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/christie-continues-denying-bridgegate-knowledge-office-subpoenaed-article-1.1601117

Why do you think that being Catholic is a strike against Ryan?

Get off my lawn!

sawdoubters wrote: »

Christie will not be running,he shut down a freeway to punish democrats,clinton will not run shes too old she will be 68
biden will be 73 he will not run ,ryan has 2 strikes hes catholic and republican



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/christie-continues-denying-bridgegate-knowledge-office-subpoenaed-article-1.1601117

Not sure why you replied on my wall and not on thread but…despite the fact that there has only been one Catholic POTUS, I don't think that Catholicism is a liability. John Kerry lost because he was a terrible candidate from Massachusetts running against an incumbent, not because he was Catholic. Mario Cuomo was tipped for the Dem nod in 1992, but bowed out, and eliminated himself from consideration for the VP nod and the Supreme Court (which, interestingly, is dominated by Catholics and Jews, in total contrast to its history as a bastion of male WASPS). Even if he received the nomination, he may have been too far to the left of the electorate to win.

Traditionally the country's most powerful Catholic politicians have had urban and/or relatively liberal political bases (the Daleys, Kennedys and Cuomos, for example). That doesn't always translate well to national elections. Whatever limitations Catholic politicians face, I don't think they have much to do with religious identification, and are rather more due to ideology and bases of support. The U.S. has come a long way since Al Smith.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Wow. CNN, CNBC and ABC called the debate for Ryan? Really?

Nobody tells me nuttin.


Or you're making that up.

I didn't say they called the debate for Ryan, I asked when CNN, ABC and CNBC became part of the right wing bubble? But I do see how some could take it that way.


CNN: Ryan 48% - Biden 44%

George Stephanopoulos, the face of ABC political team originally picked Joe Biden as the winner but later hedged and acknowledged that "Ryan held his own – did not make any big mistakes; humanized himself, when he had to humanize himself." Coming from ABC I take that as a kinda win... at least proof they’re not part of the "right wing bubble."

A CNBC Poll first showed Paul Ryan at 56% - Joe Biden: 36%, This turned out to be incorrect and later released Biden at 52%, Ryan at 44%. So I was wrong on this one, as I remembered the original polling figures.

And getting back to my question: How exactly did Scott Walker gut education and Medicaid?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I didn't say they called the debate for Ryan, I asked when CNN, ABC and CNBC became part of the right wing bubble? But I do see how some could take it that way.


CNN: Ryan 48% - Biden 44%

George Stephanopoulos, the face of ABC political team originally picked Joe Biden as the winner but later hedged and acknowledged that "Ryan held his own – did not make any big mistakes; humanized himself, when he had to humanize himself." Coming from ABC I take that as a kinda win... at least proof they’re not part of the "right wing bubble."

A CNBC Poll first showed Paul Ryan at 56% - Joe Biden: 36%, This turned out to be incorrect and later released Biden at 52%, Ryan at 44%. So I was wrong on this one, as I remembered the original polling figures.

The above is a perfect example of how you debate. Borderline dishonest and disingenuous at the very least. None of the networks called it for Ryan. In fact only one of the networks polls, CNN, called it for Ryan. This is a poll though, not the opinion of anyone at CNN. So as I said, you made it up.

For posterity, here's what you said:

Amerika wrote: »

Holy Cow... When did CNN, ABC and CNBC become part of the right wing bubble? How in the world did I miss such a monumental defection? Sheeeez... Nobody tells me nuttin!

You didn't say CNN, ABC and CNBC called it for Ryan? Ok, what was the intent of this statement then?

And getting back to my question: How exactly did Scott Walker gut education and Medicaid?

In 2013 he took $900 million out of state aid to education.

In 2011 he took $500 million out of the Medicaid budget.

Conas

I can't stand Hiliary Clinton to be honest, and I hope she doesn't get in. Ever since she started laughing hysterically at the butchering of Gaddafi that turned me off her for life. What does she offer exactly, apart from being the wife of Bill Clinton? She doesn't strike me as Presidential material at all.

Biden would be a solid choice, and could do well.

On the Republican side, I like Christie and Rand Paul the most. They'd be a strong ticket if they were to run together. Jeb Bush has more hope of getting elected than the dog down the street, after the almost permanent damage his brother done, he also signed the high treason document 'Project for a new American Century' which called for a new Pearl Harbour which they got on 9/11. We don't want another 9/11 and we don't want another Bush war.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

I didn't say they called the debate for Ryan, I asked when CNN, ABC and CNBC became part of the right wing bubble? But I do see how some could take it that way.


CNN: Ryan 48% - Biden 44%

George Stephanopoulos, the face of ABC political team originally picked Joe Biden as the winner but later hedged and acknowledged that "Ryan held his own – did not make any big mistakes; humanized himself, when he had to humanize himself." Coming from ABC I take that as a kinda win... at least proof they’re not part of the "right wing bubble."

You directly implied that.

Again, why are you lying about your own statements?

InTheTrees

Conas wrote: »

On the Republican side, I like Christie and Rand Paul the most. They'd be a strong ticket if they were to run together.

Christie's done. The stuff coming out about his administration in New Jersey is pretty damming.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

In 2013 he took $900 million out of state aid to education.

In 2011 he took $500 million out of the Medicaid budget.

Could you provide me the links so I can see the story behind the statement shock value?

Conas

InTheTrees wrote: »

Christie's done. The stuff coming out about his administration in New Jersey is pretty damming.

Yeah, but give it a year or so and it might blow over. If Christie is done, then the Republicans are done. I've said it time and time again, the Republicans are going to have to have a total revamp of their policies if they are to stand a chance, and the less they obsess about Foreign Policy the better America and the world will be. Less of the tough talking macho men, and nominate someone who puts the American people first, not Israel and America's 1%.

Something tells me that Marco Rubio could be the dark horse, and a person to watch out for. Wasn't it Time magazine who referred to him as the 'Republican Saviour'. However having listen to him speak, he's no different than the rest of them with his policies. I liked him at first, but now I don't.

InTheTrees

I saw a story this morning (sorry no link) that Jeb Bush was the front runner.

Funny.

The lesson is that the republican candidate who stays completely quiet is most likely to lead the pack. As soon as any of these people open their mouths their support starts to fall.

mikemac1

Brian Schweitzer former Democratic governer from Montana ftw

Paddypower giving odds of 66/1

Comes across as an aw shucks guy in jeans and demin shirt but he is very sharp, speaks Arabic and spent years working abroad on irrigation projects.

Had a prime time slot at the 2012 Democratic convention and got the crowd going. Ok, doesn't mean a whole lot but he can sure work a crowd

He even had a set of branding irons he would use to veto bills in Montana

Popular with the military and introduced a counselling program for vets though I dont know a whole lot about that. Strongly against gun control, to be expected in a place like Montana

Main area of interest seems to be energy and he is always talking about ending Americas dependence on foreign oil. Even fox news bring him when they someone to talk about energy

Grandmother was Irish and he has visited Waterford so we can claim him as our own

Age: will be 61 in 2016

I think he has a shot.

banquo

I remember him from the 2012 DNC, he was the only pretty good speaker - ain't nobody got nothin' on Zell Miller from the 2004 RNC - and CNN spent some time with him in a desperate "Thank God, somebody interesting" kind of way.

66/1 is fair odds for the nomination, but when the field is Hillary vs Biden, and Biden unlikely in my books to get it - or even run - then 66/1 is totally worth a fiver.

Amerika

I’m on the fence now about a Hillary Clinton presidency. I’m not seeing the love for her outside the democratic party at the moment. And you can’t count out the fairness factor. There is often a sense of fairness in US politics in the presidential elections. We’re going to have a democrat president in for two terms now. Things haven’t changed much since he took office and a jobless recovery doesn’t bode well with the average voter. As long as the GOP has a reasonable candidate, I think you may see a lot of people on the democratic side and the independents deciding to give the GOP a chance this time around. And the way politics look at the current moment, the GOP will hold the House, indications are good they might capture the Senate in 2014, and maybe even the Presidency in 2016. Things are looking up! :cool:

MadYaker

But who do they have though?? Chris Christie and Scott Walker seem to be favourites but both are already have events from their pasts come back to haunt them. I can't see either of them beating Clinton.

Amerika

MadYaker wrote: »

But who do they have though?? Chris Christie and Scott Walker seem to be favourites but both are already have events from their pasts come back to haunt them. I can't see either of them beating Clinton.

I think the Christie and Scott issues will be all but forgotten when it matters. And what experience does Hillary have to fix the economy? I’m starting to hear grumblings that the electorate is beginning to think that perhaps they made a mistake not electing Mitt Romney last time around. People might start to think that he is indeed the best person to concentrate on jobs if the real unemployment number is somewhere between 20% to 24%. If there is another market adjustment down in the next year, I’d say look to Romney. And Romney is someone both the GOP establishment and the conservatives would get behind if their other choices are Christie, Scott and Paul.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

I think the Christie and Scott issues will be all but forgotten when it matters. And what experience does Hillary have to fix the economy? I’m starting to hear grumblings that the electorate is beginning to think that perhaps they made a mistake not electing Mitt Romney last time around. People might start to think that he is indeed the best person to concentrate on jobs if the real unemployment number is somewhere between 20% to 24%. If there is another market adjustment down in the next year, I’d say look to Romney. And Romney is someone both the GOP establishment and the conservatives would get behind if their other choices are Christie, Scott and Paul.

It's always sunny in Happy Make Believe Land!

Get off my lawn!

Amerika wrote: »

I’m on the fence now about a Hillary Clinton presidency. I’m not seeing the love for her outside the democratic party at the moment.

Why would you expect to?

Amerika wrote: »

And you can’t count out the fairness factor. There is often a sense of fairness in US politics in the presidential elections. We’re going to have a democrat president in for two terms now.

Um, what? When did this happen?

Party fatigue is not the same thing as 'fairness', whatever that means.

Amerika wrote: »

Things haven’t changed much since he took office and a jobless recovery doesn’t bode well with the average voter.

But what are Republicans offering in return? Because the Reagan playbook is old and tired.

Amerika wrote: »

As long as the GOP has a reasonable candidate, I think you may see a lot of people on the democratic side and the independents deciding to give the GOP a chance this time around.

Yeah, good luck with that!

Amerika wrote: »

And the way politics look at the current moment, the GOP will hold the House, indications are good they might capture the Senate in 2014, and maybe even the Presidency in 2016. Things are looking up! :cool:

See your previous statement. :pac:

Magicknight94

I hope mrs. Hillary Clinton will become the president.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I think the Christie and Scott issues will be all but forgotten when it matters. And what experience does Hillary have to fix the economy? I’m starting to hear grumblings that the electorate is beginning to think that perhaps they made a mistake not electing Mitt Romney last time around. People might start to think that he is indeed the best person to concentrate on jobs if the real unemployment number is somewhere between 20% to 24%. If there is another market adjustment down in the next year, I’d say look to Romney. And Romney is someone both the GOP establishment and the conservatives would get behind if their other choices are Christie, Scott and Paul.

Romney has the stink of loser clinging to him though. He hasn't a hope of winning the nomination.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Romney He hasn't a hope of winning the nomination.

Stranger things have happened. In a recent poll in New Hampshire (where it all begins) Mitt Romney is the 2016 Republican front-runner. But I really don’t see him putting himself through another election unless the demand for him to run was overwhelming.

(And in other news, today is national "Tell A Fairy Tale Day!" over here -- Or as those responsible in the Obama administration for keeping the public informed about ObamaCare would call it... "Wednesday.")

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Stranger things have happened. In a recent poll in New Hampshire (where it all begins) Mitt Romney is the 2016 Republican front-runner. But I really don’t see him putting himself through another election unless the demand for him to run was overwhelming.

Barring past exceptions like Richard Nixon, I would think that the GOP will bury its dead and offer other candidates for the 2016 presidency rather than resurrecting Mitt Romney. It's still pretty early to narrow down the field for 2016, given that the real focus will be on the November 2014 mid-terms. After November, things should heat up for both major parties.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I’m on the fence now about a Hillary Clinton presidency. I’m not seeing the love for her outside the democratic party at the moment. And you can’t count out the fairness factor. There is often a sense of fairness in US politics in the presidential elections. We’re going to have a democrat president in for two terms now. Things haven’t changed much since he took office and a jobless recovery doesn’t bode well with the average voter. As long as the GOP has a reasonable candidate, I think you may see a lot of people on the democratic side and the independents deciding to give the GOP a chance this time around. And the way politics look at the current moment, the GOP will hold the House, indications are good they might capture the Senate in 2014, and maybe even the Presidency in 2016. Things are looking up! :cool:

The GOP may capture te senate? Name those seats, I can't see it.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

I’m on the fence now about a Hillary Clinton presidency.

She looked totally exhausted to the point of burnout at the end of her first term as Sec of State. The Presidency is even more stressful, so I do not think she would be a good choice in 2016.

Corkfeen

Black Swan wrote: »

She looked totally exhausted to the point of burnout at the end of her first term as Sec of State. The Presidency is even more stressful, so I do not think she would be a good choice in 2016.

Yep, inclined to believe her recent health issues etc will work against her in terms of even getting the nomination.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

The GOP may capture te senate? Name those seats, I can't see it.

Democrats are defending 21 seats, seven of which are in states that President Barack Obama lost in 2012.

With WV’s Jay Rockefeller (D), SD’s Tim Johnson (D) and IA’s Tim Johnson (D) all retiring, the chance of republican wins there are very good. And with MT’s Max Baucus (D) appointed ambassador to China, and shaky outlooks for the campaigns of LA’s Mary Landrieu (D) and AK’s Mark Beigch (D), the possibility of a GOP takeover of the Senate if very good. I think Michigan and Virginia are also vulnerable, and if Scott Brown jumps into the race in NH he could very well defeat Jeanne Shaheen (D). I only see potential problems for republicans in the 2014 mid-term race for GA and KY.

Now add to that president Obama’s falling job approval rating. History doesn’t fair well for the presidents party in mid-term elections when job approval ratings are poor. Some analyses from RealClearPolitics.





http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/20/computing_democrats_risk_of_losing_the_senate_121640.html

And since the 1970’s, Senate election history doesn’t bode well by the president's party in mid-term elections, especially when the presidency approval ratings are south of the border.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/mid-term_elections.php