WHO should be elected in 2012?

[OldHippie]

OK,I can't figure out the multi quote thingy so here goes.

SisCuz.............. The Ted Kacinzsky reply had me on the floor laughing..... Great one

Curufin.............. Hayden did more drugs than Timothy Leary

Shesabrandybuck................

[Curufin]

Okay! I was wrong! I admit it! I picked a bad example! My high school research wasn't perfect!

Can we move on to the point now???

[shesabrandybuck]

Originally Posted by OldHippie

OK,I can't figure out the multi quote thingy so here goes.

SisCuz.............. The Ted Kacinzsky reply had me on the floor laughing..... Great one

Curufin.............. Hayden did more drugs than Timothy Leary

Shesabrandybuck................

to multi quote, just simply press the multi quote button next to the quote button. If you want to quote three people, first you would click multi quote on Sis's post, multi quote on Curu's, and then quote on mine
that help?

[OldHippie]

Thanks shesabrandybuck. I've done it before but I forgot. Plus the fact that I'm an old fart and I'm computer challenged. I guess instead of the tongue smiley I should have said, "Your mother was a hamster and you father smelt of elderberries."

Curefin, I didn't mean for that to sound like a slam. It was a purely innocent post. Sorry bout that.

[HOBBIT]

This is entirely wayyyy to early to say anything. My advice: Resurrect this in 2ish years.

Unless Obama for whatever reason decides to not run again or/and he is an absolute disaster and is worse than Bush (which seems very unlikely....and look the republicans let Bush run for reelection), he WILL be the democratic nominee in 2012. Clinton's next real chance for the Presidency, if she even still wants it by then, would then be 2016.

Hillary seems to quite possibly genuinely want the Secretary of State position. She could easily use that as a stepping stone to the presidency in 2016.

[inked]

But everyone's having so much fun.......

Why wait for 2ish years?

What are the VP-elects' chances, ya think

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Okay! I was wrong! I admit it! I picked a bad example! My high school research wasn't perfect!

Can we move on to the point now???

Originally Posted by OldHippie

Thanks shesabrandybuck. I've done it before but I forgot. Plus the fact that I'm an old fart and I'm computer challenged. I guess instead of the tongue smiley I should have said, "Your mother was a hamster and you father smelt of elderberries."

Curefin, I didn't mean for that to sound like a slam. It was a purely innocent post. Sorry bout that.

I'm sorry, Rinke. It just happened to be an OUTRAGEOUSLY poor choice for your point, and I'm kinda sensitive about how poorly some parts of our radical history (some of which I was involved in) has been transmitted.

I wish I could tell this group some stories... :/ That's one of the problems with the internet. It gives me a false sense of being in a room with friends, when I'm really causing offense to people who have no reason to trust me.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Ok, sorry, but this is just silly. The democratic party is going to run the incumbent in 2012. Why? Because it is the incumbent who wins a huge majority of the time. In congress, I know, the statistic is 95%+. The democratic party is not going to run Hillary Clinton, no matter what. Look at American history. In all of history, here is the list of times the incumbent has not won:



That's it. That means, historically, the presidential incumbent has a 77.2% chance of winning. Hillary will not run in Obama's place, with all the baggage she carries and a 22.8% historical chance of winning.

One thing I wonder about - has an incumbent President ever not received their own party's nomination, when they tried to get it?

I know Reagan almost beat out Ford in 1976 - but those were rather exceptional circumstances (Ford only being there because first the VP resigned, then the Prez resigned). And... I know Johnson just didn't bother in 1968, because the Vietnam war was becoming so unpopular. But... did any sitting President, who tried to run again, actually not get their own party's nomination?

They most often seem to run unchallenged - or with no serious challenger.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Well, on any level, Val, it's a poor idea. Causes a primary fight, which is expensive, and since incumbency comes with a lot of goodies (you've already hired people for jobs who will lose them under a new administration, for example) it's a dumb idea.

Lieberman, for example, is someone who, although incumbent, lost his party's nomination. He actually sits in the Senate as an Independent, having defeated the choice of his own party.

And you see how well he's behaving (from a party POV) .

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

WASHINGTON (AP) - A Democratic Congress, unwilling or unable to approve a $25 billion bailout for Detroit's Big Three, appears ready to punt the automakers' fate to a lame-duck Republican president. Caught in the middle of a who-blinks-first standoff are legions of manufacturing firms and auto dealers—and millions of Americans' jobs—after Senate Democrats canceled a showdown vote that had been expected Thursday. ...

Ummm, IR, some facts rather than speculation from YOUR independent perspective, please!

Ok here are your facts apart from your spin up there…

Washington Post Finance Section: Earlier today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that she and Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will send a letter to the heads of GM, Ford and Chrysler, telling them what they need to show Congress in order to get federal bailout money.

Earlier this week, GM's Rick Wagoner, Ford's Alan Mulally and Chrysler's Bob Nardelli (along with UAW head Ron Gettelfinger) were in Washington asking lawmakers for $25 billion in emergency cash so they can, essentially, stay in business.

But Pelosi, Reid and other lawmakers were unmoved by the plea, saying to automakers: We know you need help, but you haven't adequately told us what you will do with the money which, by the way, comes from taxpayers.


Pelosi said that she wants lawmakers to tell Congress that, if it approves the bailout, Detroit will:
-- pay no shareholder dividends,
-- give no bonuses to employees making more than $200,000,
-- explain how they will invest in advanced technology to make more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Sounds like a good start to me… Sure beats the heck out of Bush and Paulson and Co. dropping $250 billion into the arms of the banks with NO restrictions or transparency whatsoever and what can you imagine happens? Why they still wont lend any money to the taxpayers they just took it from… Imagine that! But it seems they are still spending money on high end bonuses and AIG style executive retreats… What a great investment that was!

[inked]

IR, see here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081121/...NkDMOWPSBI2ocA

I really don't have to spin this, now do I?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Valandil

One thing I wonder about - has an incumbent President ever not received their own party's nomination, when they tried to get it?

I know Reagan almost beat out Ford in 1976 - but those were rather exceptional circumstances (Ford only being there because first the VP resigned, then the Prez resigned). And... I know Johnson just didn't bother in 1968, because the Vietnam war was becoming so unpopular. But... did any sitting President, who tried to run again, actually not get their own party's nomination?

They most often seem to run unchallenged - or with no serious challenger.

Not in the modern era...Truman was very unpopular in 1948- a guaranteed loser - and many Democrats were desperately looking for someone else, but he kept it.

You mentioned Ford, and there was Carter in '80, challenged by a Kennedy, no less- but no, a sitting president has enormous power over the party.

[GrayMouser]

As for Obama trying to get Hillary out of the limelight, SoS is hardly a low-profile position, especially with somebody like Hillary in charge.

It might be a case of better having her (and Bill ) "inside the tent p***ing out, instead of outside the tent p***ing in", as LBJ said about J. Edgar Hoover.

As far as 2012 is concerned, the more likely scenario is Biden eased out, and Hillary put in as Veep- that gives her a lock on 2016. Problem with that is she'll be 69- should be less of a concern than for a man, but alas, sexism doesn't work that way.

I was surprised when I first heard this- who gives up a safe Senate seat for a job that typically lasts only a few years?- but that would make sense.

As well, she's a pretty junior senator- no committee chairs, though Harry Reed said he'd like to give her a bigger role- so slowly working up the ladder might not appeal to a superstar; not when you could be jetting around the world and hobnobbing with the top set.

Personally, she's a bit too hawkish for my taste- I'd rather see her in the Senate shepherding healthcare through.

For the GOP? Who knows- I figure it'll take at least one more shellacking to break the grip of the right wing- but will it be in 2010 or 2012?

Jindal 2016?

[inked]

Hey, who's the current Secretary of State? No looking! No googling!


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://www.state.gov/

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Hey, who's the current Secretary of State? No looking! No googling!


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://www.state.gov/

The Invisible Woman....she works for the Invisible Man

[GrayMouser]

Though in all fairness, Condi's been a much better SoS than she was a National Security Adviser. Between her, Hadley and Gates, they managed to get some semblance of a sane foreign policy in place for the second Bush term.

[brownjenkins]

I'm thinking Huckabee may be the republican nominee in '12, though Palin or another is a possibility. Either way, I don't want the morality police and will be voting Obama, as will the majority of the US.

You can quote me on that!

[The Gaffer]

Does Huckabee appease the religious base? Why didn't he win the nomination this time around?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Does Huckabee appease the religious base? Why didn't he win the nomination this time around?

Because the much-touted "religous base" is a much less than half the republican party and about 15% of the American electorate as a whole.

Huckabee was very strong on the moral right side of things, but he was practically democratic when it came to economic policy. Very much for using government to help out those in need.

Most republicans lean towards social conservatism but, when push comes to shove, the "holding onto their money" factor is a lot more important. Give them the choice between lower taxes or family values and they will choose lower taxes every time.

The religious block of the republican party is large, but it is not a majority any more than the radical left is a majority in the democratic party.

[inked]

An analysis in the Wall Street Journal of the last election - with numbers!!!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122653996148523063.html

The mainstream crescendo of the obamessiah seems to have a few dents, here and there.