• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2016 Democratic Presidential Primary

2016 Democratic Presidential Primary (Choose as many as you like)


  • Total voters
    19

TeleKat

Banned
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
3,775
Location
Ask the NSA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
So there is a pretty popular thread where posters are discussing their likely choices for a Republican nominee. Thought I'd start one for the Democrats. So, here we are. Who do you favor to win the 2016 Democratic primary?
 
Webb has the best chance of winning a general election-for the primary that might hurt him since he won't appeal to the extremists-especially the anti male vote that hates his pro gun pro military credentials

warren is too extreme, Cuomo too "ethnic" and biden is a moron.
Hildabeast is too old and has even too much baggage for a Jerry Springer dating show
 
I chose Sanders and Webb because of their strong civil libertarian leanings. Plus both of them are rather sane on foreign policy compared to Biden and Clinton. Webb probably has a better chance of winning the general election between the two of them because he's left of center economically while Sanders is far-left. A country this firmly entrenched on the economic right will not elect a democratic socialist. Just a fact. :shrug:

Out of all the primary candidates, Clinton has the best chance for both the primary and the general, an unfortunate truth. Webb is a runner-up in regards to general election chances IMO, but will likely not win the primary. He's 1.5% to Clinton's 63%. He's the Ron Paul of the Democratic Party so to speak. A damn good candidate that will, sadly, never see the White House due to party politics.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a Democrat, but I still see Warren as having the better chance to secure the nomination.
 
I'm not a Democrat, but I still see Warren as having the better chance to secure the nomination.

Nah. Clinton has the star power, Clinton has the money, and Clinton has the contacts. To continue my analogy to the 2012 Republican primaries, Clinton is the Mitt Romney of the 2016 primary. She's favored to win by those with the power and the money to make it happen.
 
Nah. Clinton has the star power, Clinton has the money, and Clinton has the contacts. To continue my analogy to the 2012 Republican primaries, Clinton is the Mitt Romney of the 2016 primary. She's favored to win by those with the power and the money to make it happen.

Perhaps but Clinton also has the political baggage. Arguably, Republicans will have to negative campaign against Clinton in an entirely different way dealing with Warren. My thinking is Warren will force Republicans to campaign on ideology and issues stance and not near as much as prior actions. Clinton on the other hand, most of the Republican campaign can be about her past going back to her time in Arkansas.
 
I was impressed by what a weak field it is. Biden would be entertaining but not taken seriously. I believe Clinton's time has passed in the general however she has enough star power to get the nomination. Sanders and Warren are goofballs. Webb is relatively unknown. although I know a little about him. I don't know who O'Malley is and Cuomo is a jerk. Democrats could use some new blood.
 
Perhaps but Clinton also has the political baggage. Arguably, Republicans will have to negative campaign against Clinton in an entirely different way dealing with Warren. My thinking is Warren will force Republicans to campaign on ideology and issues stance and not near as much as prior actions. Clinton on the other hand, most of the Republican campaign can be about her past going back to her time in Arkansas.

Meh. Warren will be seen as too extreme in the general. This country is firmly entrenched on the right and only centrist or conservative Democrats will get the White House. Once upon a time more left-leaning candidates could snag it but that was before the totalitarians across the ocean spoiled left-wing economics and made everyone afraid of the commies. All the GOP has to do is point at Warren and say "socialist" and she's done. Sad reality. Clinton is a right-winger with deep pockets. She has both races in the bag. Webb is the only one, IMO, that would have somewhat of a chance either way, but then again we thought the same of Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman for the GOP. Webb, like Huntsman and Paul, is dry as the Sahara desert when it comes to money. And he's not exactly all that politician-ish either. He's too...real.

Idk, anything is possible, but I stand by my original prediction for Clinton. It sucks, but it's reality. Hopefully I'm wrong.
 
It's Hillary's to lose.

She has the momentum, the recognition, the machine and the centrist policies that will win in the national.
I see Liz as her Sec. of State or possibly her AG ... nothing more.
 
So there is a pretty popular thread where posters are discussing their likely choices for a Republican nominee. Thought I'd start one for the Democrats. So, here we are. Who do you favor to win the 2016 Democratic primary?

That's actually an interesting question.

I figure that if Hilary runs then she'll more or less be unopposed. Maybe Cuomo or Sanders will step in just for effect. However, if Hilary decides to back off then Warren will probably be the top choice and I figure that several others will jump in as well. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see Bill Richardson play a role in that scenario. He wouldn't win but he would draw Latino votes that, presumably, would transfer to Warren when he stepped out. Cuomo make take a stab at it but if he did so it would only be as a trial run for 2020. My understanding is that he isn't progressive enough for most of the Democrat base and, due to the SAFE Act, he'll lose a whole lot of independents.
 
Webb has the best chance of winning a general election-for the primary that might hurt him since he won't appeal to the extremists-especially the anti male vote that hates his pro gun pro military credentials

warren is too extreme, Cuomo too "ethnic" and biden is a moron.
Hildabeast is too old and has even too much baggage for a Jerry Springer dating show

Agreed. Plus, Jim Webb is a Marine Veteran. I think he was in the Vietnam War if I remember correctly.

I'm not a Democrat but I did vote in this - I voted every option except for Hillary. If it were a single choice, I'd vote for Jim Webb.
 
Nah. Clinton has the star power, Clinton has the money, and Clinton has the contacts. To continue my analogy to the 2012 Republican primaries, Clinton is the Mitt Romney of the 2016 primary. She's favored to win by those with the power and the money to make it happen.

Yeah, but the thing about the 2012 Republican primary is that practically EVERYONE except Romney was legitimately bat**** insane. The only exception was Huntsman, who just didn't appeal to the mood of the party and never said anything memorable.

Romney wasn't favored by anyone. The Republicans were dying for someone viable to come out of the woodwork who could kill off Romney. Fox attacked him mercilessly, right up until the moment he won the primary. And if there had been anyone even moderately sane or quotable, Romney would have gone down in a hurry. There just wasn't. Romney only got the nomination because no one else was even passably acceptable. The GOP lineup of 2012 was a complete joke.

If anyone who is passably acceptable steps up, Clinton (assuming she runs) will go down in flames, just like she did in 2008. She's the Democrats' version of Romney. And the Dems have even more motivation to try to whack her off, because unlike the GOP, Dems won't band together for a candidate they don't like for the sake of the party, and they know that. Too much of the potential Dem voting block is centrists or independents.

On top of that, Clinton would run into the same problem in 2016 that McCain ran into in 2008, being of the same age at the time: is she too old? She'd be in her mid-70's by the end of her first term, and that concerns some people when it comes to appointing someone to the most stressful job in the world, known to triple the speed at which people age.

And she has a third disadvantage: the dynasty notion, which is even more detested by Dems than it is by Reps. I doubt a third Bush has a flying chance in hell. A second Clinton certainly doesn't unless there is literally no one else.

I don't think Clinton is as viable as people seem to think she is. The combination of her dynasty reputation, her age, her Romney-esque status in the party, and Democrat's reluctance to vote as a block, makes her very vulnerable indeed.

I think it's possible Warren could come flying out of the woodwork again. She certainly appeals to a neglected block of the party, as Democrats seem to be trying to ride closer and closer to center-right, rather than sticking to their supposed affiliation.

I also find it ironic that at least half the people who voted for Webb aren't even lefties and would probably never vote for him anyway. That tells me that Webb, in reality, has no shot in hell. Apparently his appeal is to people who would never even vote for him.
 
My list top 3.
1.)Bernie Sanders
2.)Elizabeth Warren
3.)Joe Biden
 
Excellent analysis as usual, I would like to add my two cents though.

Yeah, but the thing about the 2012 Republican primary is that practically EVERYONE except Romney was legitimately bat**** insane. The only exception was Huntsman, who just didn't appeal to the mood of the party and never said anything memorable.

I thought Ron Paul was pretty ok. Disagreeable on a few issues for sure, but overall a decent candidate. He likely would have gotten quite a few crossover votes because he was strong on the liberal issues where Obama was lacking(civil liberties, marijuana legalization, foreign policy, etc).

Romney wasn't favored by anyone. The Republicans were dying for someone viable to come out of the woodwork who could kill off Romney. Fox attacked him mercilessly, right up until the moment he won the primary.

Uhh, it was pretty obvious that he was favored.

If anyone who is passably acceptable steps up, Clinton (assuming she runs) will go down in flames, just like she did in 2008.

I'm not sure I'm convinced of that. I sure hope you're right, but I think Clinton has the money and the contacts to make it happen.

And the Dems have even more motivation to try to whack her off, because unlike the GOP, Dems won't band together for a candidate they don't like for the sake of the party, and they know that. Too much of the potential Dem voting block is centrists or independents.

Good point, however Hillary polls rather well with centrists and independents. It's the hard-lefties that she has trouble appealing to.

On top of that, Clinton would run into the same problem in 2016 that McCain ran into in 2008, being of the same age at the time: is she too old? She'd be in her mid-70's by the end of her first term, and that concerns some people when it comes to appointing someone to the most stressful job in the world, known to triple the speed at which people age.

The same was thought of Ronald Reagan but he won and was later re-elected.

And she has a third disadvantage: the dynasty notion, which is even more detested by Dems than it is by Reps. I doubt a third Bush has a flying chance in hell. A second Clinton certainly doesn't unless there is literally no one else.

The dynasty notion might hurt her and Bush in the general, but I don't think it will hurt either in the primary. Bill Clinton was and still is rather popular among the Democratic base. Not sure why, seeing as he and his wife both had a huge part to play in the passing of DOMA...but hey, it's party politics. :shrug:

I think it's possible Warren could come flying out of the woodwork again. She certainly appeals to a neglected block of the party, as Democrats seem to be trying to ride closer and closer to center-right, rather than sticking to their supposed affiliation.

Possibly.

I also find it ironic that at least half the people who voted for Webb aren't even lefties and would probably never vote for him anyway. That tells me that Webb, in reality, has no shot in hell. Apparently his appeal is to people who would never even vote for him.

Meh, I wouldn't really discredit him based on who votes for him on an internet poll. If anything that shows he could have quite a bit of appeal in swing states. He could easily collect crossover votes while still appealing to the disenfranchised base in his party due to his strong stance against income inequality. Also, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, he could definitely pull the left-leaning libertarians like myself that usually vote Green or Libertarian.

I think he has a decent shot.
 
Biden keeps it real.

I can't think of a better politician with foot and mouth disease than Biden - I agree - he'd be funniest President in perhaps, all of US history.
 
Yeah, you're actual fun to argue with! :2razz:

Excellent analysis as usual, I would like to add my two cents though.

I thought Ron Paul was pretty ok. Disagreeable on a few issues for sure, but overall a decent candidate. He likely would have gotten quite a few crossover votes because he was strong on the liberal issues where Obama was lacking(civil liberties, marijuana legalization, foreign policy, etc).

He had much more appeal to libertarians and, weirdly, a certain segment of lefties, than he ever did to the main GOP base. The GOP basically ignored him, including their long arm in the media, Fox. He never had a chance.

Uhh, it was pretty obvious that he was favored.

Not really. He just wasn't actively crazy, and he was prettier than Huntsman. That was all he had going for him. And Republicans did lots and lots of moaning about him until it was inevitable that he'd win due to lack of viable opponents, at which point they did what Democrats won't, and rallied.

I'm not sure I'm convinced of that. I sure hope you're right, but I think Clinton has the money and the contacts to make it happen.

Good point, however Hillary polls rather well with centrists and independents. It's the hard-lefties that she has trouble appealing to.

If she loses the whole Dem base -- which she will -- it doesn't matter.

Here's something I don't think people realize: liberalism is NOT unpopular. What's unpopular is Democrats. Nothing proves that more than the recent midterms (stay with me here). When it came to the actual ballots, people voted overwhelmingly for liberal policies, even while they were also voting for conservative politicians. When it came to candidates, they weren't voting on issues. They were voting on dissatisfaction with Congress, which happened to be Dem-led, so that translated into anti-Dem votes. That doesn't mean they're pro-conservative. They obviously aren't. Look how they voted on the issues.

And perhaps part of the reason Dems are having such a hard time winning anything is because they keep REJECTING liberalism. Liberalism is popular. People want liberal reform. But the Democrats just keep moving further and further right, cutting off their own voting base for the sake of pandering to the Republican noise machine that keeps calling them commies for absolutely no reason. I mean, what have the Dems done lately that's even left of center, let alone communist?

The Dems are hurting themselves by refusing to field liberal candidates.

The same was thought of Ronald Reagan but he won and was later re-elected.

Yeah, and now everyone knows that he developed Alzheimer's while he was a seated president. People won't be quick to make that mistake again.

The dynasty notion might hurt her and Bush in the general, but I don't think it will hurt either in the primary. Bill Clinton was and still is rather popular among the Democratic base. Not sure why, seeing as he and his wife both had a huge part to play in the passing of DOMA...but hey, it's party politics. :shrug:

Hillary has struggled in popularity since she first came on the scene. Bill's good will hasn't extended to her in the past, and there's no reason to believe it will now. What do you want to bet that if she gets the nomination, we'll be hearing that "baking cookies" comment on repeat from every GOP commercial for 6 months straight?

Meh, I wouldn't really discredit him based on who votes for him on an internet poll. If anything that shows he could have quite a bit of appeal in swing states. He could easily collect crossover votes while still appealing to the disenfranchised base in his party due to his strong stance against income inequality. Also, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, he could definitely pull the left-leaning libertarians like myself that usually vote Green or Libertarian.

I think he has a decent shot.

Maybe, if he's populist enough. But I think it's a bad move, if for no other reason than putting him up is an obvious play to appear more center-right, even if he really isn't. And for reasons I explained above, I think that continuing to try to play the center-right is suicide for the Democratic party.

Ultimately, when it comes to discussing what's a viable strategy, we both have to keep in mind that most of the American public won't vote like you, or like me, for that matter. ;) So what we think is a good idea isn't necessarily what will win.

Personally, I think the Dems should play liberal. However, I don't think my kind of liberal could ever win. It will be a platform-based liberal, not a progressive, or a left-libertarian.
 
I'm rather skeptical about putting anyone from the Obama administration at the helm of the Democratic ticket. For multiple reasons.

Another disadvantage for Hillary. :lol: Sec of State, anyone?
 
Yeah, you're actual fun to argue with! :2razz:

You too! :)

He had much more appeal to libertarians and, weirdly, a certain segment of lefties, than he ever did to the main GOP base. The GOP basically ignored him, including their long arm in the media, Fox. He never had a chance.

We agree there, I was just establishing that he should not have been lumped in with the others when you were calling all the nominees bat**** insane. He was a pretty cool guy. A little iffy on the economics, but a definite change of pace from the general warhawks and civil authoritarians that make up the GOP.

Not really. He just wasn't actively crazy, and he was prettier than Huntsman. That was all he had going for him. And Republicans did lots and lots of moaning about him until it was inevitable that he'd win due to lack of viable opponents, at which point they did what Democrats won't, and rallied.

At the grassroots level he wasn't all that popular, but from a media and party leadership perspective he was definitely the token boy. Much like Clinton, he had the money and the contacts.

If she loses the whole Dem base -- which she will -- it doesn't matter.

You just said most of the Dem base is centrists, moderates, and independents. The voters Hillary appeals to best.

Here's something I don't think people realize: liberalism is NOT unpopular. What's unpopular is Democrats. Nothing proves that more than the recent midterms (stay with me here). When it came to the actual ballots, people voted overwhelmingly for liberal policies, even while they were also voting for conservative politicians. When it came to candidates, they weren't voting on issues. They were voting on dissatisfaction with Congress, which happened to be Dem-led, so that translated into anti-Dem votes. That doesn't mean they're pro-conservative. They obviously aren't. Look how they voted on the issues.

And perhaps part of the reason Dems are having such a hard time winning anything is because they keep REJECTING liberalism. Liberalism is popular. People want liberal reform. But the Democrats just keep moving further and further right, cutting off their own voting base for the sake of pandering to the Republican noise machine that keeps calling them commies for absolutely no reason. I mean, what have the Dems done lately that's even left of center, let alone communist?

The Dems are hurting themselves by refusing to field liberal candidates.

Hear hear!

Yeah, and now everyone knows that he developed Alzheimer's while he was a seated president. People won't be quick to make that mistake again.

Fair point.

Hillary has struggled in popularity since she first came on the scene. Bill's good will hasn't extended to her in the past, and there's no reason to believe it will now. What do you want to bet that if she gets the nomination, we'll be hearing that "baking cookies" comment on repeat from every GOP commercial for 6 months straight?

Mehhh, I can definitely see your point but that has just not translated into the general attitude I've seen from the party. Everyone is Ready for Hillary and while there are a few progressives rooting for Sanders/Warren and a few left-libertarians rooting for Webb, most seem to be lining up behind Clinton.

Maybe, if he's populist enough. But I think it's a bad move, if for no other reason than putting him up is an obvious play to appear more center-right, even if he really isn't. And for reasons I explained above, I think that continuing to try to play the center-right is suicide for the Democratic party.

Playing center-right is bad, I agree, but he's not center-right. He's actually quite liberal on the economics. He is rather like Warren in that he is an outspoken critic of Wall Street and income inequality. Where I see him making a difference is guns/immigration for the independent cons and civil liberties/foreign policy for the libertarians.

Ultimately, when it comes to discussing what's a viable strategy, we both have to keep in mind that most of the American public won't vote like you, or like me, for that matter. ;) So what we think is a good idea isn't necessarily what will win.

True, true.

Personally, I think the Dems should play liberal. However, I don't think my kind of liberal could ever win. It will be a platform-based liberal, not a progressive, or a left-libertarian.

Also true.
 
I won't vote in this poll since I am not trending toward a Democratic Party nominee. However, in the event that the Republicans select someone like Rand Paul, I will jump to the Democrats if they nominate Hillary or someone like Biden or Webb.
 
Last edited:
On top of that, Clinton would run into the same problem in 2016 that McCain ran into in 2008, being of the same age at the time: is she too old? She'd be in her mid-70's by the end of her first term, and that concerns some people when it comes to appointing someone to the most stressful job in the world, known to triple the speed at which people age.

That is something to consider. Democrats really do have a problem with old leaders, due to their younger-than-average base. If this were a Republican, I would say age is a benefit (which is also more in line with my sympathies).

Personally, I would wish Democrats toss aside their disproportionate emphasis on young people and hone in on those who were a bit older, but I suppose that's an outsider's perspective.
 
Dont much care but it occurs to me that...
HRC has too much baggage and no charisma
Webb is running for vp
Biden is an idiot
Sanders is too much of a communist
Leaves Saquagea Warren who only a donkey can take seriously.

Got anyone else ? Maybe one with any sort of credibility ?
 
Back
Top Bottom