Does the loser have a chance in 2016? Would Obama win a primary against Hillary or any of the other D's? If he's voted out in 2012, it seems like it's a referendum against him personally--that his charisma and "hope" message didn't sway enough people to overcome his record. Would he run in 2016? And if he did, would he beat out Villagarosa, Clinton, Gillibrand, Cuomo, Warner, etc? I don't see Romney winning in 2016 if he doesn't now. Personally, I think that this year's crop of R's in the primary basically drove the bus to Romney-ville. It seemed like a strawman standup of right-wing caricatures--here's a crazy woman, here's a crazy guy, here's a crazy Christian nutjob guy, here's Newt, etc.-- that allowed Romney basically to go against Paul with the "he's not winning anyway, so let me be the one to take down Obama" primaries campaign. And it worked. But I doubt that if Rubio, Christie, Walker (or even Ryan) had been running that Romney would have been able to get to this point without clarifying a bunch of issues. On a tangent, Huntsman needs to get his name out there more. Whether President or not, having a really intelligent guy with that much China/East Asia experience somewhere high up in the government is going to be key in the next decade.
I would agree this is Romney's last run for the White House. As to Obama, he's young enough but if he loses this election to a candidate as weak as Romney the message is clear that he was a failed President. And that will hang on him like a cheap suit if he tries to run again. So, no, I think this is it for both of them. As to Hillary, I seriously doubt she'll run again. In the last election she campaigned poorly and grossly mismanaged her campaign funds. I think she's learned.
I don't think Hillary's going to run. I don't think she'd serve a second term as Secy. of State even. If she did run, she'd remind everyone what a nasty person she is (and I get that from friends of mine who work in or run democratic party campaigns and know her). Biden is the obvious guy to get the nomination, having served 4 or 8 years as VP. Speaking of VPs, Al Gore is a guy on the Dems' side who would logically be as good a choice as any. Think Nixon (lost '60 as sitting VP as did Gore in 2000, won '68). The republicans need someone of the Clinton model. A sitting governor with retail politicking skills. There are several obvious governors to choose from - Christie, Daniels, etc.
Huntsman was the most interesting candidate for me from the Republicans but I predict neither candidate will be a caucasian male in the next election. I also think the political climate is set for a major 3rd party candidate.
Why? I mean, Bush was grossly ineffective for 8 years, things have been so hopelessly screwed up under Obama and the GOP has nothing better to offer than a Romney now. If ever we needed a 'great reformer' with new and fresh ideas (rather than the same old mistakes by the left and the right) it is now. Or even 4 years ago. And what do we have from any potential third party? Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffttttttttttt. No, with all due respect, while we are desparate for a third party it just isn't going to happen, IMHO. And I'll tell you why. In a word, sheep. There are too many people on both the left & right that are told what to think and how to vote and they drink the kool-aid. There aren't enough people with the intellectual capacity to actuallty consider the issues and reason things out to start a viable third party. And if you need a small sampling as proof, look around this board.
I generally agree with everything said in this thread. I would be interested in Hunstman if he didn't balk on his stance about evolution and global warming anymore. I'm not sure about his social issues stance, but I suspect they would also be more mainstream. With that said, it seems weird to imagine Biden or Hillary running.
The other problem with adding a 3rd 4th or 5th party is that it divides things up and makes it easier for an extremists political party to take power. Which could be just as bad. With more parties you end up dividing up either the conservative or liberal vote and can end up with a less represented opposition winning. Ralph Nadar anyone?
3 reasons: - Growing disapproval of the 2 major parties - Rise in independent voters - Organization of political movements on the right and left i.e. Occupy, Tea Party
Occupy isn't as much a political movement as it is a bunch of really unhappy people. Unhappy they borrowed for education and can't get a job, unhappy they're not rich like the 1%, etc. Tea Party seems interested in taking over an existing party more than becoming a 3rd party. However, this year we had both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson run in the republican primaries. Along with the spirit of what the Tea Party talks about (constitutional govt., smaller government, etc.), Paul's strongest showing (for a Libertarian) ever, Paul's son being elected, the 40 newly elected (2010) tea party backed candidates, etc., might mean people will wise up and give the Libertarians serious consideration. I'd be interested in specific policies that Johnson proposes that people take issue with. "Smaller govt." is a goal/ideal, not a policy. Bringing the troops home ASAP is a policy.
Sorry, but no. I'm not like you or many others around this place. (i wanted to say "this dump" but didn't want to hurt Denny's feelings- he's so sensitive))
well, clearly you are if you are voting for romney or obama, you shouldnt be ashamed though, embrace it
