View original postMost of the Republicans you mentioned are absolute jokes and lightweights (like Kasich, Haley, Perry, Jindal and most of the other governors you mentioned) or come with tons of baggage (Cruz, Bush, Rubio, Paul). I think that Christie is going to have a rough primary season because so many Republicans still don't seem to get that even making a candidate run to the right for the primaries can fatally compromise his chances of victory in the general election. I still think Christie will win if he runs, but there is a lot that can happen between now and then (he could have a heart attack, for example) so trying to pick a candidate before the midterms before that election is sort of quixotic at best.
I agree it is pointless to be picking nominees pre-2014, that was more or less the summary of my post, but I have no idea what you're even referring to as myopic reasons. The nominee for the GOP is going to need more than 'Was re-elected governor of a medium or major state' but the nominee needs something parallel to that to get the foot in the door.
View original postOn the Democratic side, I do think that it's Hillary's race to lose, but again, there is a lot that can happen between now and then. We should not underestimate the frenemy relationship that the Clintons have with the administration, and there are certainly subtle ways that Obama could undermine a Hillary candidacy if the Clintons continue to pick away at Obama for the good of the party as they've started to. Cuomo would have a good chance of winning but he's very inexperienced, something that should make people stop and reflect given what Obama has shown us. The candidate that I find most interesting is Cory Booker, who could repeat Obama's path to Hillary's detriment if he wanted to. Of course, he's light on experience, too, though he has more executive experience than Obama had coming in (which was none, of course). Warren will likely also make a strong play for the left wing of the party.
Cuomo would end up sharing a lot of NY support with Hillary, I don't see him beating her, nor Biden, which is why I think everyone thinks Hillary is the probable or even sure-win candidate. Again I think a Dem governor of a decent sized purple state would have the best chance to shove her aside. Nothing changes that most of our presidential nominees and an even greater share the ones who win had the title of VP or Gov first. 2008 was an anomaly because Huckabee & Romney gutted each other paving a McCain victory, and Hillary and Obama were both Senators, personality is the biggest factor but having Gov or VP in front of your name is always and advantage.
View original postIf Republicans wise up and stop pushing loud ideologues and focus instead on capable statesmen, then I think the party can win big in 2014 and move on to take the White House. If the Tea Party continues to influence the Republicans, or worse yet, convinces the rank and file that their previous candidates were "moderates" and that hard core conservatives are needed, we will see a Democratic Party that continues on despite its obvious flaws because the alternative looks crazy, belligerent and stupid.
The GOP doesn't push loud ideologues, they push themselves inot the spotlight, and the primary usually weeds them out quick. It's absurd to even imply that Romney, McCain, Bush 1 or 2, Dole, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower or Dewey were 'ideologues'. Goldwater was, and you can argue Reagan was, but the party has a track record of kicking them to the curb, like Bachmann.
- 01/12/2013 02:12:40 AM
686 Views