Talk:2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Elizabeth Warren

Is it worth it to mention Elizabeth Warren given that she has always said she's not running? Her name has been brought up a lot, but I don't think it ever looked like she was going to run.--TiaC (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, give her a mention in the "declined" section. Okay, I don't think she ever said she would run, but a Warren candidature was a wet dream among many of the more leftist and/or populist Democrats. I also heard Dan Carlin toy with the idea of the consequences of the mainstream Republican and Democratic candidates being challenged simultaneously by a left wing populist (Warren) and a right wing populist (Paul) and whether it would force some re-evaluation of the relationship between business and politics, especially on Wall Street vs. Main Street. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Bernie Sanders

Accordinng to Yahoo News and MSNBC Bernie Sanders has said he is considering a run as a Democrat. nobsISIS is SISI spelled backwards. 14:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you add him, then? ScepticWombat (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln Chafee

We now have him exploring a presidential committee run (or whatever the fuck they're calling it). He's gone on record to say her closeness to Wall Street and hawkish foreign policy concerns him greatly, so I think we should add him under "May Run." Serocco (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Her being Clinton? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 19:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not like there's any other female Democrat that's in the running (sadly). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Chafee will run for president as a Democrat] Serocco (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] When and why are someone "too old" to be POTUS?

By what criteria is +65ish "too old" to be President?
In an age when many people, and especially the middle and upper class types running for President, are fit, healthy and sound of mind well into their 70s and 80s, why are Biden and Clinton (and presumably Webb, though it's not mentioned) considered "too old" to be President? A list of POTUSes by age at their inauguration indicate that a President Biden or Clinton would not be much older than James Buchanan (65) or George H. W. Bush (64), or (especially given the different life prospects back then) Zachary Taylor, Andrew Jackson, or John Adams (all 61), while Eisenhower was 62.
I can see the objection with regards to Bernie Sanders because he would be even older than Reagan or William Henry Harrison (none of whom makes a good case for elderly POTUSes), but why exactly is 65-66 considered too old? Especially when no one seems to be calling Jeb Bush (62), John Bolton (66), Ben Carson (63), Rick Perry (65) or Mitt Romney (68) "too old" for the Presidency. There are plenty of good arguments against all of them (incl. Biden and Clinton), so why the (selective) emphasis on age? ScepticWombat (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Of the current candidates you listed, only Jeb Bush is viable as an actual nominee, and he's five years younger than Hillary Clinton. I think it's worth considering that she'd be the second oldest first-term president if elected.Hotwateramericano (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
And Jeb Bush would be somewhere around the 4th-6th oldest (I think 4th judging from inauguration vis-a-vis his birthday) first term president if elected, yet no one has raised a word about that. To me it looks like someone are being sloppy in their reasoning.
I mean, if there was a tradition that U.S. politicians in general were expected to retire in their mid-60s, I'd understand the age argument, but as it is, it just seems like an incredibly weak, almost knee-jerk objection.
(PS. In the political culture I'm most familiar with there actually is a tradition of politicians retiring when hitting the normal retirement age around 65-67, so there Hillary would definitely be considered too old). ScepticWombat (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Reagan was said to exhibit early onset Alzheimer's before he got elected. Meryl Street was nominated for an Academy Award for her portrayal of Lady Thatcher as a dottering old fool. So I don't see where this is a big deal. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 19:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Does either Clinton or Biden (or Bush, for that matter) exhibit symptoms of early onset Alzheimer's? And since Thatcher was only 54 when she first became PM (and 65 when retiring), I really don't see the relevance of citing Meryl Streep's Hollywood portrayal of the Iron Lady (spoiler: Hollywood History). ScepticWombat (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Not very relevant to the subject matter, but "someone" isn't plural. Just letting you know, since you've used "someone are" a couple times now. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia says this of 1996: Clinton could run a campaign through the summer defining his opponent as an aged conservative far from the mainstream before Dole was in a position to respond. Compared to the 50-year-old Clinton, then 73-year-old Dole appeared especially old and frail...; so it is likely to be an issue. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 20:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
nobs, I think you're missing the contrast here: The 50-year-old (Bill) Clinton vs. the 73-year-old Dole was (also) about two different generations (babyboomer vs. "greatest generation"), 67/69-year-old (today/potential inauguration) Hillary Clinton vs. 62/64-year-old Jeb Bush isn't.
That's what I don't get about the argument: The insistence that 69 years old at inauguration is definitely too old, while 64 (and a month from being 65) years old is just fine and dandy. I'm not saying that age is completely irrelevant, I'm criticising what appears to be a rather arbitrary and selective use of the "too old" argument. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Who says it'll be Bush III vs Clinton II? If it's Clinton II vs Ted Cruz *hurls* it'll be Boomer vs Gen Xer.CorruptUser (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Pfft, Ted Cruz. Yeah right. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I suppose with the generational gaps you could argue that the older candidate doesn't understand the majority of Americans since they're too old. Other than that, mid-60s might be the age where former Presidents started to die.-- Forerunner (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
If age is only relevant if an age difference amounts to a generational difference, why the categorical "too old"-labels slapped on Clinton and Biden, but not on Bush? We don't know that Clinton or Biden will be the Democratic nominee either, it could be an O'Malley/Santorum (*shudder*) combo. Again, if the salient point is the age difference, then boldly asserting that Biden or Clinton (and Bush?) is "too old" makes little sense. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Considering the proportion of babyboomers in the U.S. (and Europe, for that matter), I really don't think the "understand the majority of Americans since they're too old"-argument is very persuasive (you could turn it around and say that younger candidates don't understand their elders). Also, "mid-60s might be the age where former Presidents started to die"? Really? Which POTUSes in recent decades have died at that age? LBJ seems the only post-WWII example[wp] (died aged 64) and the second-youngest ex-POTUS at death since WWII was Ike (78) and Tricky Dick (81). Considering that life expectancy in the U.S. is around 77 for men and 82 for women, as well as the spate of activities ex-POTUSes, such as Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush have embarked on well into their 60s or even 70s and 80s, the "decrepit" factor needs some qualification. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The WP link above pointedly says the Clinton's made age an issue in '96. While Hillary has better than a 50% chance of being her party's nominee one year out, the same cannot be said of Jeb Bush. Clinton and Bush only matchup as leading fundraisers at this point. The grassroots party faithful will have their say in the primaries. The age differential between Walker and Hillary (20 years) is roughly equivalent to Clinton-Dole (22 years), or even the Clinton-Bush Sr (21 years) and Obama-McCain (20 years) contests. And age likely was a factor in the Obama-Hillary primaries, where Hillary had a decided fundraising edge. True too, though, the babyboomers make up a much larger portion of the electorate then the WWII generation did in its senior years. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 20:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to be crystal clear here, when I C/P'd that from Hilary to Joe, it was because I found it odious that it was dropped on the younger candidate, who happens to be female(who are more often judged on age in our culture), not because I believe anyone thinks that. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

There may be a conundrum up and coming: If Joe announces, do we put him in with the serious contenders or the perennials? This would be his, what, 4the or 5the run? nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 20:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd say Joe definitely goes in the serious category. Sure, he may have run before, but back then he wasn't the VP, which, as already mentioned, can be quite a good starting position - at least in terms of name recognition (eeeh, on second thought that might not be such a good thing for Joe "The Gaffe" Biden...).
As for the hypothetical Hillary match ups, they still don't answer the question of why we should consider a potential President (Hillary) Clinton or Biden as "too old", but not the 5 years younger Jeb Bush, or why no one made this objection to Romney when it was still thought he'd take a shot at 2016. If anything, given the difference in life expectancy, the "too old" objection makes less sense for a female candidate and I agree with ikanreed that it seems to be one of the less persuasive reasons for opposing Hillary Clinton. There are plenty of good reasons not to vote for her, so why emphasise one that verges on the spurious? ScepticWombat (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
So the argument is calling attention to Hillary's age is sexist cause women have longer life expectancy. Glad we got that out in the open. It's really only the under thirty voters that age makes a difference (as the Clinton's have so masterly demonstrated) as the under 30 crowd's issues are so much simpler, dare I say naive, and they just need a candidate or image they can relate to.
But the whole subject is very interesting; the babyboomers for all their numbers, economic power, cultural influence and hype, only produced two morons as president, Bill Clinton and George w. Bush. By contrast, the WWII generation produced 5, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Ford, & Bush Sr. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 01:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Can we omit the cranks and perennial candidates?

They exist for the Republicans too, but we don't cover them.Hotwateramericano (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to remove them, but they were added because they were the only ones who were officially running when the article was started. Btw, you could argue that some on the Republican list are also cranks and perennials (Trump and Paul, springs to mind). ScepticWombat (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I found them fun to read about. I like the education about crazies on the left. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
There should be some standard, like ballot status, primary results, or pledged delegates. We'll go through the something in the General Election w/3rd party candidates. This here is where the 501(c)3 thing about showing favoritism may have application. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 19:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I put the perennial candidates in their own category.Hotwateramericano (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support