So there is a pretty popular thread where posters are discussing their likely choices for a Republican nominee. Thought I'd start one for the Democrats. So, here we are. Who do you favor to win the 2016 Democratic primary?
At the grassroots level he wasn't all that popular, but from a media and party leadership perspective he was definitely the token boy. Much like Clinton, he had the money and the contacts.
You just said most of the Dem base is centrists, moderates, and independents. The voters Hillary appeals to best.
Mehhh, I can definitely see your point but that has just not translated into the general attitude I've seen from the party. Everyone is Ready for Hillary and while there are a few progressives rooting for Sanders/Warren and a few left-libertarians rooting for Webb, most seem to be lining up behind Clinton.
Playing center-right is bad, I agree, but he's not center-right. He's actually quite liberal on the economics. He is rather like Warren in that he is an outspoken critic of Wall Street and income inequality. Where I see him making a difference is guns/immigration for the independent cons and civil liberties/foreign policy for the libertarians.
If Dems want to win, they need to stop trying to appeal to cons or libertarians or whatever else, and just appeal to Dems. The fact that they don't is why they lose so much.
Both parties fault at trying to appeal to their extremes.
Appealing to mainstream liberals is not extreme. And that is what the Dems have failed to do for the majority of the last 20 years.
Most Dems these days plot to the right on a political compass. Forget "extremes" -- they've moved so far away from liberal that it's almost like they're trying to grab RINO's instead of their own party.
The Democrats' problem is that they don't appeal to anyone.
Both parties fault at trying to appeal to their extremes.
A very popular, if not sympathetic point.
If one party pivots strongly to their base, it is highly advisable for the other party to go after the moderates and make the former seem isolated.
Both are increasingly convinced that their bases are ignored, while the other party is rabidly going the other direction. It's kind of comical, really.
Hillary's in there like her swimwear. No doubt about it. She has name recognition, has the money, has Bill, and has detached herself from Pres Obama enough that people will forget about that part of it. Plus, she understands this may be her last opportunity to run so she'll push hard to make it. I don't think anyone can hang with her from the Democratic party honestly. Warren is the Ron Paul of the Democratic Party in that she has a small but fervent support base that will always get her name in the discussion but never get her over the hump.
Biden has no chance IMO. The guy has said and will say too many stupid things to make it. I think he's entertaining personally but the media crucifies anyone that isn't spit and polished so severely that any one gaff takes a person totally out of the running. It'll be Clinton, even if it isn't enthusiastic. I don't think the Democratic Party is ready for the let down of 2016 personally. There is no Barack Obama around the corner that will stir up their base this time. He was a rare candidate in that he inspired a lot of people to vote that normally wouldn't. I don't think that will be repeated for a long time. By either party.If anything, that's unfortunate, because she was never more popular than she was as Obama's Sec of State during his first term.
Hillary didn't generate a ton of passion the first time around, and she won't this time either. If there's someone even mildly exciting, she'll lose. If she wins, count on liberal voters staying home -- that's what they do when there's no one interesting.
Warren is coming 2nd or 3rd behind Clinton right now according to an earlier link. And that's considering that a lot of people aren't especially politically aware, and won't have heard about her at all until if/when she makes a run, so obviously that's affecting her numbers. Who's she fighting for second with? Biden, someone everyone knows about.
Warren is most definitely the dark horse of the race if she chooses to run. And let's not forget, dark horses tend to do well for the Democrats in recent decades. They tend to win, in fact.
I saw no passion for him from anywhere whatsoever. Not in life, not on DP, and not in the media.
No -- I said there's enough of them for it to make a difference. And a LOT of those independents are actually liberals who left the party because the Dems aren't actually liberal anymore.
The centrists are impossible to predict. They're all over the place. Any candidate will get at least some of them.
The moderates? Well, look. It's really unlikely anyone in the GOP field is going to appeal to most moderates. Plus, they're a minority within a minority. The Dems need to stop worrying so much about them, and focus on actually being Democrats -- something they haven't done for at least 20 years.
Yeah, but we're talking about Democrats. His gun stances are losing propositions right out of the gate, and so are at least some of his immigration stances.
Appealing to libertarians is a completely foolish thing to do.
For every libertarian they gain, they're going to lose 2 Democrats, because they have virtually no stances in common apart from gay marriage.
Guns alone won't be enough to sway libertarians.
His fiscal policy will switch most of them right off.
Looking a little closer at him, he's also going to have some problems with women and gays based on some prior votes and work he did (some decades ago, and some rescinded, but that won't stop them).
Biden has no chance IMO. The guy has said and will say too many stupid things to make it. I think he's entertaining personally but the media crucifies anyone that isn't spit and polished so severely that any one gaff takes a person totally out of the running. It'll be Clinton, even if it isn't enthusiastic. I don't think the Democratic Party is ready for the let down of 2016 personally. There is no Barack Obama around the corner that will stir up their base this time. He was a rare candidate in that he inspired a lot of people to vote that normally wouldn't. I don't think that will be repeated for a long time. By either party.
Nah. Clinton has the star power, Clinton has the money, and Clinton has the contacts. To continue my analogy to the 2012 Republican primaries, Clinton is the Mitt Romney of the 2016 primary. She's favored to win by those with the power and the money to make it happen.
I agree. So the fact that he has no chance, and his numbers are probably maxed out, makes it even more clear Warren is the only seriously contender currently on the stage. Her numbers have a lot of room to grow due to simple awareness, to say nothing of switching over, and she doesn't have the recent history that Biden does. Because what Warren does is stir up the base, dude. That's exactly her thing.
It's just that, so far, the politically unaware haven't heard of her. Once they do, Hillary has a serious problem on her hands.
Though if I were Warren, unless something colossal happens, I would wait for 2020. The Dem's chances are remote in 2016, simply due to America's tendency to decide they hate whatever party is in power right now and vote for the other one.
Unless the Republicans totally screw Congress (and how much worse could it be screwed than what both parties have already done?), I think it's wiser for her to wait.
You don't need passion to win these days. Just money. An unfortunate truth.
Hey, I agree the Dems need to be more liberal if they are to win. I definitely don't disagree on that point. I've been saying it to anyone that would listen. That's why I, personally, rarely vote Democrat. I'd rather stick with the Greens or even the Libertarians. If I wanted to vote for Republicans I'd just vote in the real deal. :shrug:
Again, I don't disagree. But the Dems can't focus on just their liberal base. That would be dumb IMO. Get back to the left on economic policies absolutely, but don't just focus on pandering to the staunch liberals. Appealing to one base won't win an election.
Not necessarily. His immigration stance is pretty ok, this is coming from someone who supports open borders. Secure the borders amd grant amnesty to those already here. It's reasonable and pragmatic.
As for his guns stance? It's not exactly illiberal to support gun rights.
It's not just guns though, that's the point. Webb has an extremely strong record on both foreign policy and civil issues. His social issues also have quite a bit of appeal to libertarians. Webb would have the libertarian vote easy and wouldn't really need to alienate as many liberals as you seem to think to do it. You think Jeb Bush would do a better job at courting the libertarians? Chris Christie? Ted Cruz? Rick Perry? Fat chance! But Jim Webb, yeah he could do it.
Not all libertarians are fiscally on the right.
That is a valid concern for sure. But I think he could work something out. He's not the only Dem to have some past baggage on social issues.
If Hillary decided not to run, then Warren would stand a good chance to win the nomination in 2016. Problem is, she simply doesn't have the name recognition Hillary does, which means that the GOP would stand a chance of winning. And I think you're flat wrong when it comes to Hillary's chances in 2016 - she's going to break that glass ceiling.
Assuming that Hillary does win in 2016, then (if Hillary stays healthy), Warren's going to have to wait until 2024.
And can the Republicans win? Barring health problems or a total train wreck of a scandal against Hillary (and no, Benghazi won't help them), she's going to win. Personally I'd prefer Warren...but Hillary's a heck of a lot better than anyone from the GOP.
Biden has no chance IMO. The guy has said and will say too many stupid things to make it. I think he's entertaining personally but the media crucifies anyone that isn't spit and polished so severely that any one gaff takes a person totally out of the running. It'll be Clinton, even if it isn't enthusiastic. I don't think the Democratic Party is ready for the let down of 2016 personally. There is no Barack Obama around the corner that will stir up their base this time. He was a rare candidate in that he inspired a lot of people to vote that normally wouldn't. I don't think that will be repeated for a long time. By either party.
So there is a pretty popular thread where posters are discussing their likely choices for a Republican nominee. Thought I'd start one for the Democrats. So, here we are. Who do you favor to win the 2016 Democratic primary?
My list top 3.
1.)Bernie Sanders
2.)Elizabeth Warren
3.)Joe Biden
I have 6 words for you.
Obama versus McCain.
Clinton versus Bush.
Neither Obama nor Clinton was well-known... before they ran for president and mopped the floor with their celebrity-status Republican opponent. Dark horses do well for the Democrats.
The leadership of the Democratic party doesn't pick the candidates, voters in the various primaries do. + I don't very many democrats are aching to vote for Cuomo.If the leadership of the Democratic party is doing any type of math, they would probably run a Clinton-Cuomo ticket. I haven't heard too much of Cuomo running, but a 2X term governor from New York would be a big boost to the ticket. Besides, governors usually make good executives.
Either way, I'll vote for Gary Johnson if he runs again.
I agree. So the fact that he has no chance, and his numbers are probably maxed out, makes it even more clear Warren is the only seriously contender currently on the stage. Her numbers have a lot of room to grow due to simple awareness, to say nothing of switching over, and she doesn't have the recent history that Biden does. Because what Warren does is stir up the base, dude. That's exactly her thing.
It's just that, so far, the politically unaware haven't heard of her. Once they do, Hillary has a serious problem on her hands.
Though if I were Warren, unless something colossal happens, I would wait for 2020. The Dem's chances are remote in 2016, simply due to America's tendency to decide they hate whatever party is in power right now and vote for the other one.
Unless the Republicans totally screw Congress (and how much worse could it be screwed than what both parties have already done?), I think it's wiser for her to wait.
Only if you're lucky and don't have anyone exciting running at all, either within your party or on the other side. I mean, Bush is the only recent president who didn't have much passion behind him, but look at the two stiffs he was running against. They could have been replaced with a cardboard replica. His stupidity was almost endearing, compared to the Ents running for the Democrats.
Yes it will. That's why the Republicans kick ass, dude.
Most Americans are not very nuanced in their politics. They like the idea of swallowing a platform, no matter how nonsensical it might be when you look under the robe.
In the Democratic party, yes it is.
In the corrupted excuse we have for a libertarian party? YES! Any of them!
Almost none of us here on DP represent that. You don't represent Libertarians. I don't represent Democrats.
In the general American sense, the Libertarian party is extremely pro-business,
but they wouldn't even get to that point of contention with Webb, because they'd reject him the moment they saw the "D" by his name.
Nope, but most of the party is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?