US Presidential Candidates

Just looking at the list of Republican potentials - it's a long one.

The previously mentioned

Ted Cruz
Jeb Bush
Scott Walker
Rand Paul
Bobby Jindal
Ben Carson

But also

Marco Rubio - Senator Florida a very popular and rising conservative Republican star from a swing state. He is currently debating between a presidential run and his increasing power/influence in the Senate. By Florida law he can't run for his Senate seat and the presidency simultaneously. He must choose.
Update: Rubio is in the race. He is a solid conservative, more conservative than Bush, but less so than the Cruz.

Mike Huckabee - Gov Arkansas former governor of Arkansas. Ordained pastor and one of the major leaders of the Religious Right section of the Republican party

Mike Pence - Gov Indiana popular conservative GOP governor

John Kasich - Gov Ohio another popular Republican swing state governor

George Pataki - gov New York former Republican governor of a blue state, probably not conservative enough to win the nomination

Lindsay Graham - senator South Carolina Republican establishment figure

Rick Perry - gov Texas up for round 2 with the goal of convincing people that no I am not an idiot in spite of how bad I looked in the last election

Chris Christie - gov New Jersey running on the I am a successful conservative governor of a blue state agenda, please ignore the fact that I behave like a member of the mafia.

Rick Santorum - Senator Pennsylvania Former senator and Tea party favorite until Ted Cruz came along

Carly Fiorina - former CEO HP, running on the I know business agenda, which many followers of her tenure at HP dispute. No political experience.



And about a dozen (+) others

Unfortunately on the Democratic side the list is very short.

Hilary Clinton
Hilary Clinton
Hilary Clinton


There is a draft Elizabeth Warren movement but she has shown zero interest in running. I rather like her. She is an idea factory, which we badly need. Her solutions are too extreme but they are great starting points for discussion. Moderate versions of them have potential. For that reason I wish she would run, however I don't want her to win - she's too extreme. I want her in the race for basically the same reasons I want Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Ben Carson in the race. They all produce ideas which would add a great deal to the debates. However, all are too extreme for me to want any of them to win.


The only others I've seen mentioned on the Democrat's extremely weak bench are:

Martin O'Malley - unpopular former governor of Maryland. Famous for tax and spend and tax again. Liberals like him. No one else does.

Jim Webb - Senator Virginia, longtime establishment type

Joe Biden- vice president famous for his perennial foot in mouth syndrome

Bernie Sanders - Senator Vermont An actual socialist he is running to the left of everyone and then some.




The A list alternatives don't seem to be running. Just a thought but what are the Democrats going to do if something happens to Hillary? She's old for a presidential candidate and has had at least one major health scare. And she looks worse every time I see her (I mean physically worse). The stress of the email scandal really is showing. How is her health going to stand up to the rigors of a presidential campaign? And what are the Democrats going to do if she doesn't? They don't seem to have much of a Plan B.

I suppose if she drops out early enough some of the more popular Democratic governors of red or swing states might consider running (voters tend to prefer governors because they function similarly to the president and thus have relevant experience and being elected in a swing state or opposite party state is a surrogate marker for the ability to appeal to independents). But these A list candidates would be very late in the game and would need Hillary's machine to switch to them in order to catch up.

Mike Beebe - Arkansas
John Hickenlooper - Colorado
Brian Schweitzer - Montana
Steve Beshear - Kentucky

And none of these guys have shown any interest in running in 2016. It would have to be be a desperation we need to draft someone in a hurry movement by party leaders.

I've been seeing a lot of news reports lately that Jeb Bush is winning the invisible primary.

I don't know if the other countries have something similar since they all have parliamentary systems. In the USA, the invisible primary starts the year before the primary elections. The goal is to get as many money people and party organizers/officials to back you.

The money people may be either rich themselves or have the proven ability to raise large amounts of money in $10, $25 donation amounts. Romney spent $120 million, so that will be the goal. Money is raised and donated both directly to candidates and indirectly to Political Action Committees (PACs), super PACs and 527 organizations. There are campaign finance limits on how much money can be donated directly to a candidate. Political Action Committees are "separate" and allow more money to be contributed but still have contribution limits. 527s and superpacs have unlimited contributions but must be completely independent of the candidate(s) they support. 527s can't directly support a candidate, so these tend to be issue oriented groups. (This occasionally can result in a candidate denouncing a 527 which is supporting him, when the 527 in question is crazy.)

They also are trying to collect as many party organizers/officials as they can in all 50 states. The importance of this was highlighted last round when several of the GOP candidates failed to register for a primary in a Virginia. To keep every nutcase on the planet from registering and having a 100 page ballot, there are basic requirements to register for primaries such as collecting a certain number of signatures, submitting paperwork by a certain date etc. EACH of the 50 states has DIFFERENT requirements. So primary candidates need to have a ground organization in all 50 states to handle the collection of signatures etc required for registration as well as handle other nuts and bolt issues. Party organizers/officials already have these networks in place and it is a great deal easier to try and use these networks than to attempt to build ones from scratch.

Anyway news reports are saying that Jeb Bush is winning this invisible primary. Which is ironic since there is a considerable enthusiasm gap with Republican primary voters. Responses like PeterZ's I don't like him and my he's OK but not great are the norm. Few of the normal people really like him, although the money people and the politically connected seem to.

Wouldn't it be nice if Donald Trump caught some mysterious disease resulting in an 18 month long case of laryngitis?

biochem wrote: That uncompromising style of his would be disastrous as a president. He and Obama have that in common.

Every time I see that sentiment coming from a Republican I'm dumbfounded at where their worldview comes from.

Uncompromising? Compromising is basically Obama's entire political playbook (at least until the last year or so when he appears to have *finally* given up). For fuck's sake for his signature domestic policy achievement his STARTING POSITION in negotiations was essentially "Here GOP, let's do your plan that Romney implemented in Massachusetts". Did he propose medicare for all, which is what the base of HIS party wanted? (And which would have been far more effective btw). No. He didn't even put it on the table. Purely in the name of compromise.

And the GOP reaction? Call it communist. Their own plan. And spend the next many years doing nothing but holding votes to repeal it and suing to try to get the Supreme Court to kill it. Just because it was offered by Obama.

But Obama is the one who "won't compromise"


It's public knowledge now that before Obama even TOOK OFFICE the GOP leadership met and decided that they were going, for purely political strategy reasons, to obstruct practially anything and everything he did no matter what the proposal was because they thought that if he actually got anything done with bi-partisan support people would see that as fulfilling his campaign promises about bringing people together. Non compromise was the chosen in advance GOP approach to this presidency from before Obama was even sworn in.

But Obama is the one who "doesn't compromise".

To that end the GOP has shattered all previous records for the use of the filibuster.



Refusing to approve and holding up presidential appointments at a rate that eclipses all previous administrations. Even when they ADMIT they have no objections to the appointee.



But Obama is the one who "doesn't compromise".


Where the hell do you get this from? Seriously?

One definition of someone who is uncompromising...

"The stupid idiot won't do what I wantin the exact way I want him to!"

Not the dictionary definition, but one that many people reach for.

biochem wrote:Is it just me or does Hilary Clinton seem to be playing the role of Mitt Romney in the primaries this time around? Remember how every week the story was: Mitt is inevitable but the voters don't like him and are searching for an alternative. Every week it was a different candidate: Michelle Bachman - nope she's crazy, Rick Perry - nope he's an idiot, Herman Cain - nope sexual harassment scandal, Newt Gingrich - nope he's mean, OK we're stuck with Mitt - do we really have to pick him....

If you mean the sentiment among the more liberal end of the Democratic base... it would be the same in the sense that they don't want to be stuck with Clinton who is far too snuggled up to wall Street for their taste (not to mention that whole voting for authorizing use of force in Iraq thing). But they're not going through a sequential lottery of alternatives. It went:

Warren? Please? Please run? PLEEEEEEEASE? No, not gonna run?

Sanders! We want Sanders!

And they've been locked on that ever since pretty much and they're mobilizing to fight it out through the whole primary. Don't see that dynamic changing much (barring massive unexpected scandal or Warren suddenly deciding to actually run).

The one huge problem i see with the vast majority of the republican candidates is that they are trying to run based on what they perceive their religion is and are from my perception are wanting to impose it on the the rest of the country. That and their perennial decision to eat shoe with regard on how they treat women or saying that women need to be led around. Talk about people making me do multiple head desk slams over stupidity in the republican contenders.

Every time I see that sentiment coming from a Republican I'm dumbfounded at where their worldview comes from.

You´re not the only one indeed. I´m wondering if there´s been any other US president facing such extreme obstructionism at all?

And i wonder how many presidents have tried more than Obama to compromise? Not many for sure.


#####

I've been seeing a lot of news reports lately that Jeb Bush is winning the invisible primary.

I don't know if the other countries have something similar since they all have parliamentary systems. In the USA, the invisible primary starts the year before the primary elections. The goal is to get as many money people and party organizers/officials to back you.

Many countries would call that corruption.

That system would very likely lead to a loooong line of court cases if tried here, even with the laws of a few years back.
And the law was recently made stricter still.


#####


Oh and BTW, anyone getting confused by the "red"/"blue" states talk, know that USA uses those colours a bit unlike most of the world in regards to politics.
Democrats are blue, republicans are red, opposite of how the colours are commonly used most places.

It´s a history thing.

I personally wouldn't urinate on any of the republican candidatez if they were on fire. Not a single one of them appears capable of running a piss up in a brewery, (well Trump could) let alone a country. They all seem to be chasing the far right fundamentalist so called christian racist voter, and judging by Trumps polling numbers, that's where they think they need to be.

Of all the candidates, Sanders appears the best due to sheer honesty and unwillingness to play games. (He comes across that way at least)
There may be worthy Republican candidates, but they're being burried.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk