Talk:2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 24 June 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

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)

Bernie Sanders

Accordinng to Yahoo News and MSNBC Bernie Sanders has said he is considering a run as a Democrat. nobs^{ISIS 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)

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)

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. nobs^{I 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. nobs^{I 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 (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. nobs^{I 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? nobs^{I 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. nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag.} 01:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No, nobs, it's not sexist to call attention to Clinton's age (and I never claimed it was), it's a piss poor and argument made in lieu of serious criticism. I simply pointed out that the "too old"-claim, which seems only to be levelled at Hillary Clinton, makes even less sense in the light of women living longer than men. If age was a real concern, rather than a manufactroversy, where was the "too old"-crowd when there was still talk of a(nother) Romney run?

I also think you ignore the fact that it's not only the under 30s who have a penchant for "likeability"; Dubya played heavily on this in 2000, and he was hardly carried into the Oval Office due to the youth vote.

Your hype of the WWII generation also overlooks all their inconvenient sides, e.g. that JFK's reputation might be less rosy if not for the Camelot PR and getting shot before Vietnam escalated, that Nixon was a crook, that Ford was a nobody, and that both he, Carter and Bush Sr. were the only incumbent post-WWII POTUSes to lose their re-election bids. Bill Clinton may be an unprincipled political operator, but he's certainly no moron (unlike his exceedingly intellectually lazy successor). That said, I'd still give Nixon credit for his China policy, Carter for his attempt at energy reform, Bush Sr. for a prudent foreign policy, and Ford for... really what did Ford do? (except for pardoning Nixon, of course). Btw, why is LBJ not on this list? He did have a war record you know. Anywho, LBJ is also a good news (Great Society & civil rights)/bad news (Vietnam & imperial presidency shenanigans) story if ever there was one (okay, Nixon's version is more extreme).

Or are you saying that the WWII generation leads the baby boomers by 5 morons to 2? (In that case I'd add LBJ due to Vietnam and Saint Ronnie due to... well, pretty much everything he did, really) ScepticWombat (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Both LBJ & Reagan were in their 30s with successful careers & marriages, served stateside, etc. Didn't include Ike, either. I'm talking about guys who served frontline as Jr. Lieutenants and rose to be Commander - in - Chief. The point being made is, the babyboomers had a reputation of being pretty irresponsible and not ready for national leadership well past the hippie days of the 1960s. Dan Quayle was the first babyboomer to run on a national ticket (Bensen, his opponent, bitch slapped him on national TV, remember?). So if we look at babyboomers who got elected to the top offices, we have Quayle, Clinton, Gore, Dubya, Cheney, and Biden. A pretty sad collection of misfits that represent "the best and the brightest" of 68 million babyboomers. nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag.} 20:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Being dangerously and irreverently snarky: Well, it wasn't the babyboomers who were in charge of the one major war the U.S. lost... (sorry, that cheap shot was just way too tempting).

Your WWII heroes also includes Tricky Dick who did more than any other POTUS to undercut the reputation of the office.

Anyway, I still think that Clinton did a fair job on the economy and the budget (even if some of the Great Recession systemic weaknesses originated during his presidency, others went back to Ronnie, while most can be laid at Dubya's door), and I really don't see why Ford made your list (why do you think he's a fantastic POTUS example?).

Also, LBJ did not spend his entire service stateside and narrowly missed being killed (he switched from one aircraft to another and the one he was originally assigned to was shot down with no survivors). Considering the nature of Nixon's war service, LBJ actually saw more "action" than Tricky Dick (no, I'm not denigrating Nixon's war record, merely pointing out that your criteria seem rather superficial to me). ScepticWombat (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

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. nobs^{I 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)

Chafee and Sanders

Can we add Chafee & Sanders? Both have said they are in, which is about as far as Warren & Romney got before withdrawing. Or is it "confirmed" after a press conference, or FEC filing? nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag.} 03:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Biden

Is the vice president, which can be a springboard to future presidential success. Let's look at the actual record.

• Van Buren & Papa Bush - the last two sitting VPs elected to the presidency.
• Nixon - most people from both parties thought it unlikely or impossible, but pulled it off in a 3-way split w/42%.
• Teddy Roosevelt - got elected only after McKinley got hisself killed. GOP bosses gave the dead end VP spot to head off this popular reformer from becoming president.
• Andrew Johnson - impeached.
• Lyndon Johnson - assumed presidency on JFK's demise; the poster child why Senators (from Harding, JFK, Nixon, and Obama in past 100 years) make lousy presidents and why the American people repeatedly reject them.
• Truman - kept in the dark by FDR and knew diddly squat upon ascession. Barely won election in a four way split. Left office with approval ratings below George W. Bush.
• Other wannabes - Ford, Quayle, Gore, Henry Wallace, Rockefeller, John Nance "bucket of warm piss" Garner, etc.

I'm gonna make a change. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 20:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps "a springboard to future presidential nomination" then? Also, why'd you list Ford with the forgettables? Vulpius (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

No one elected Ford to either position, VP or Pres, and when the voters had their say, they canned him. By contrast, the guy they did elect VP to replace him - Mondale - likewise got trounced in an even bigger loss 8 years later. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 21:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Ford was actually a good president. Well, not quite good, but what the country needed at the time. Though I'm biased because I'm a hardcore Rockefeller Republican and Ford chose the Rockefeller as his Veep. CorruptUser (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Somehow my brain didn't discern how he was different from LBJ. Vulpius (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

TR (Teddy Roosevelt) is the classic case study. As New York Police Commissioner he implemented Civil Service reform in the New York Police Dept. and ended the patronage system. Party bosses were scared to death of him cause his youth, ambition, and notoriety could get him elected president. So they gave him the VP spot, hoping that would end his career. Most VPs who became president, other than TR and Coolidge, are regarded as failed presidents. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 23:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Weren't Jefferson and John Adams also veeps? So that's 4 "successful" Presidents that were also Veeps. CorruptUser (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Upto Van Buren (c. 1828), the VP was a virtual President - in - waiting. Papa Bush was the first sitting VP elected in nearly 150 years, as most narratives go, because voters thought they were getting four more years of Voodoonomics. Nixon (need to fact check this) may be the only ex-VP, nonconsecutive, elected in his own right who was not an "accidental president" (like Andrew Johnson, TR, Coolidge, Truman, LBJ, or Ford) who succeeded upon the death or removal of another.nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 00:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Nixon came pretty darn close to going directly from VP to POTUS in 1960, just as Gore did in 2000. As for Ford's defeat, that probably had more to do with him being associated with Tricky Dick than anything else. But I second the changed phraseology to something like "a springboard to a presidential run". ScepticWombat (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

FEC list

Here's the FEC list (useful for the GOP page, too.) I can't find Vermin Supreme listed, which must be a pseudonym. nobs^{I'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think....} 19:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Are we not going to mention the candidacy of Limberbutt McCubbins, the cat from Louisville? ConfusedLiberal (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

When was the last time...

We had only three candidates (if you don't consider the cranks) and neither a sitting nor a former President or Vice-President running before the first votes in any primary or caucus were cast? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

2008. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 19:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

All but Barack, Hillary and Edwards dropped out before Iowa? Really? I seem to dimly recall that there was speculation about Gore even in German media... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well according to old auntie wi there were a lot more people in the race pre Iowa in 2008 thaen now... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hillary's VP

So let's assume Hillary becomes the Dem nominee, which is likely, who should she pick and why? In my view she has three choices: Elizabeth Warren, Michael Bloomberg, and John Kasich. I think that if she were to pick Elizabeth Warren she may win over more of the Sandernistas; if she picked John Kasich she could corral Repubs who despise Trump and are more establishment. I doubt she would pick Warren since she may be too vocal against he proposals and John Kasich would turn off the pro-choice liberals. Her best bet might be Bloomberg since she may be able to convince moderate independents to vote for her, but it would kill any chance at her portraying herself as not a part of the "establishment".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC) 18:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Eh, when has Hillary ever pretended to not be part of the establishment? Her entire campaign has focused on portraying her as the only "responsible" (read: establishment) candidate on the Democratic roster and she's already gearing up to continue that message against the Republican (where it might arguably be more successful; I doubt that Middle America is yet so frustrated that it won't recall from either a Trump or a Cruz ticket). Hillary is the consummate status quo candidate and only gets into real trouble (i.e. makes herself look like a ridiculous and unprincipled hypocrite) when shy tries to play the plucky challenger. In sum, it sounds like Bloomberg would be ideal veep material.

Even Hillary wouldn't be craven enough to choose Kasich as a running mate (for all his protestation of moderation, he's still a Republican and a "moderate" in that crowd is like the winning entrant of a shiniest turd competition...) and I doubt Warren would be stupid enough to accept the offer even if Hillary would make it, which I doubt she will. I'm pretty sure that Warren prefers to be outside pissing in than the opposite and her "street cred" as the queen of the left would vanish if she teamed up with such a clear cut status quo candidate as Hillary. Furthermore, Hillary's "the only grown up in the room"-strategy would hardly benefit from getting Warren aboard, not to mention that Hillary would probably regard Warren as more trouble than she's worth.

It's also unlikely that Warren supporters would flock to the Republican banners, so the only risk to Hillary is that they are so turned off by her that they stay at home on election night and either a Trump or a Cruz candidacy might entice them to the polls to "vote against" such a GOP contender. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Bloomberg makes no sense from either a demographic or a geographic sense if your argument is "balance the ticket". The other two are too far left and right respectively, at least in Clinton's mind... You don't run a "I represented Wall Street" campaign just to make someone Veep who was called "Darth Vader" by those people... Pizzameister (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Why would Bloomberg want to be VP with all the lack of power it brings? Because he thought it would be a springboard for a 2024 Presidential run? It makes no sense. I agree with the above, and I'm sure she'll find some nice, middling, Democratic insider who's a little bit young and independent, but not enough to frighten the money. Annquin (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a 0% chance she picks a Republican, so if those are the only choices (they are not), Elizabeth Warren. However, you've ignored Julian Castro, who is more likely than any of them. Hipocrite (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)