• 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!

Are there any realistic Democrat Alternatives to Hillary

Is Hillary the Democrats only REALISTICALLY PLAUSIBLE option?

  • Yes. It's Hillary Or Bust for the Democrats.

    Votes: 12 33.3%

  • No - there is at least one other possibility (name)

    Votes: 13 36.1%

  • No - there are many other plausibly realistic possibilities

    Votes: 11 30.6%
  • Total voters
    36
Jetboogieman said:
It doesn't look like anyone else in the Democratic Party can win the nomination, let alone the General.

We'll see if this email thing may hold water but latest polls have hillary 35+ points ahead of all other potential candidates (Warren, Biden etc.).

Whereas on the Republican end we'll see interesting primaries, Bush and Walker within a few points of eachother holding the lead at this time.

Doesn't mean anything til we get properly started though.
Click to expand...
I have this feeling that the 2016 election is the Rep's to lose... and somehow they will probably manage just that.
 
NIMBY said:
Exactly--four times in our history the GOP has won the Electoral College and lost the popular vote.
None for the DEMs .



They don't even know that most states before the Civil War used the Congressional District method for allocating Electoral Votes .
Click to expand...

it doesn't matter who wins the popular vote.. it's irrelevant... meaningless.

but yeah, states can allocate their electoral votes in any way they want... most choose the "winner takes all" approach, except for 2
 
DaveFagan said:
That's correct. He has enough money to finance his own campaign, however his energy conservation credentials are valid. He beat Bush by half a million votes and the SCOTUS gave Bush the big job and Bush did the Big Job on us. The Nation still hasn't recovered. Gore's money came from his Daddy Senator's OIL investments and that is correct. It takes someone with big independent money to take on Big Energy and Big Banking. That makes him more viable than many other candidates, especially form my GREEN point of view.
Click to expand...

oy vey... I didn't know that "bush stole the election " or the "SCOTUS gave Bush the presidency' myth was still around.... they should have died long ago, on the merits.
 
zimmer said:
Oh... Republicans have tons of blame to shoulder.

Need to get I's and D's out of voting in our primaries for starters, and we need to nominate folks... Conservatives... who will fight. Obama was the lamest of candidates. Republicans simply didn't rip him apart and force the press to follow their lead.

I mean really... how do you lose to an anti-American who was mentored by Marxists, racists and associated with known terrorists?
Click to expand...

You want to know why you lost? Your post is self evident.
 
radcen said:
I have this feeling that the 2016 election is the Rep's to lose... and somehow they will probably manage just that.
Click to expand...

Yep, pretty much what most of the experts are saying....:doh

The missing story of the 2014 election - GOPlifer
Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
The Democrats have a lock on the White House - MarketWatch

The reason the Republicans are working so hard to roll back the Imperial presidency is their recognition that their chances of actually winning the White House for the foreseeable future are pretty slim. Its too bad they won't recognize what they need to do to win the White House is to actually recognize America's changing demographics and embrace it. The Dems learned a long time ago that the White House is won by appealing to the middle rather than the extremes of the party.
 
Last edited:
reinoe said:
I disagree. As a person who sells insurance, there's times where I know that the only answer some people will accept are lies. Those people are idiots and I'm sure some of them vote.
Click to expand...



Half of the voters are dumber than the other half.Which half will vote in 2016? :roll:
 
Well, now the Warren is out, no idea.

If Bush and Clinton are the best the two parties can come up with...YIKES!!!
 
upsideguy said:
Yep, pretty much what most of the experts are saying....:doh

The missing story of the 2014 election - GOPlifer
Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
The Democrats have a lock on the White House - MarketWatch

The reason the Republicans are working so hard to roll back the Imperial presidency is their recognition that their chances of actually winning the White House for the foreseeable future are pretty slim. Its too bad they won't recognize what they need to do to win the White House is to actually recognize America's changing demographics and embrace it. The Dems learned a long time ago that the White House is won by appealing to the middle rather than the extremes of the party.
Click to expand...

The "experts"? Please tell what makes these 3 people "experts" on predicting Presidential elections.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Heard a rumor that Al Gore was considering a run.
Click to expand...

Why would Al Gore do that? He would be a viable candidate sure, after all he won in 2000 however, he is an easy target for naysayers in a way that they could sway the vote in there favor and not his. He's probably the easiest target out of all the potential runners.
 
cpwill said:
Measured in terms of items like ability to build broad bases of support, national infrastructure, and the like. Are the Democrats stuck with a bench that is one-deep? Are all of their eggs really in the Hillary basket?
Click to expand...

As a republican, I fear senator Webb running more than I do Hillary. Hillary is going to come across exactly like Kerry: a blue blood liberal elitist with very little personality. Webb would appeal to a far broader base.

Sherman123 said:
I don't think so. Though she's probably one of the only Democrats I'd consider voting for (depending on the Republican nominee). But it seems like they have a fair amount of possibilities, for example what about Jim Webb, Joe Biden, Brian Schweitzer, Andrew Cuomo, and a few other names that I think would be viable options for a general election.
Click to expand...
Schweitzer would be viable as well, but I think he is too little known outside of Montana. Plus, I dont think he has Webb's Washington and military experience.

cpwill said:
Jim Webb and Andrew Cuomo both have base problems. Unions loathe Cuomo, and Webb is a Reagan Democrat.
Click to expand...

Being a Reagan democrat can be an incredible asset.

Sure, it is not going to excite the far left on the democratic party, but it allows him to appeal to business owners, gun owners who are not hardcore members of the NRA and GOA (that includes most gun owners), people for who are either pro choice, people who support the active defense of US interests abroad.

Likewise, some people who dont prioritize religous views when voting can at least be assured that Webb is probably not going to try to coerce nuns into passing out BC.

Webb should run and simply ignore the far left occupier activists, and Warren afficionados of the democratic party. Their views are becoming increasingly irrelevent anyways. Then again, I hope he does not run... .
 
Last edited:
Cryptic said:
As a republican, I fear senator Webb running more than I do Hillary. Hillary is going to come across exactly like Kerry: a blue blood liberal elitist with very little personality. Webb would appeal to a far broader base.


Schweitzer would be viable as well, but I think he is too little known outside of Montana. Plus, I dont think he has Webb's Washington and military experience.



Being a Reagan democrat can be an incredible asset.

Sure, it is not going to excite the far left on the democratic party, but it allows him to appeal to business owners, gun owners who are not hardcore members of the NRA and GOA (that includes most gun owners), people for who are either pro choice, people who support the active defense of US interests abroad.

Likewise, some people who dont prioritize religous views when voting can at least be assured that Webb is probably not going to try to coerce nuns into passing out BC.

Webb should run and simply ignore the far left occupier activists, and Warren afficionados of the democratic party. Their views are becoming increasingly irrelevent anyways. Then again, I hope he does not run... .
Click to expand...

I think you are misreading the Democrat base, which has moved significantly leftward over the last few years.
 
JohnWOlin said:
Why would Al Gore do that? He would be a viable candidate sure, after all he won in 2000 however, he is an easy target for naysayers in a way that they could sway the vote in there favor and not his. He's probably the easiest target out of all the potential runners.
Click to expand...

Just something I heard, that as it stands right now, Hilary will be the nominee and she has the backing of the major donors.... however some in the democrat camp are nervous about potential dirt that may come up about the Clintons and those kingmakers are hedging their bets, looking around at other viable candidates in case Hilary should be deemed too toxic to run. Al Gore is said to be the most likely #2 as Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren aren't seen as having a wide enough appeal to carry the election.

Take it for what it's worth. There's still a lot of time and a lot will happen between now and election day.
 
I could see a Howard Dean comeback...
 
JohnWOlin said:
Why would Al Gore do that? He would be a viable candidate sure, after all he won in 2000 however, he is an easy target for naysayers in a way that they could sway the vote in there favor and not his. He's probably the easiest target out of all the potential runners.
Click to expand...

If he " Won " in 2000, he would have become our Nation's President.

He didn't, and he's no more viable than Bernie Sanders.
 
Personally, I find Elizabeth Warren a lot more interesting and inspiring than Hillary, although, bar no surprises, Hillary will likely be the uncontested nominee.
 
cpwill said:
Measured in terms of items like ability to build broad bases of support, national infrastructure, and the like. Are the Democrats stuck with a bench that is one-deep? Are all of their eggs really in the Hillary basket?
Click to expand...

CP I believe the dems can only win with Hillary.
 
cpwill said:
Measured in terms of items like ability to build broad bases of support, national infrastructure, and the like. Are the Democrats stuck with a bench that is one-deep? Are all of their eggs really in the Hillary basket?
Click to expand...

No. And - there are no realistic Republican alternatives to Hillary either. So we're all stuck.
 
cpwill said:
Measured in terms of items like ability to build broad bases of support, national infrastructure, and the like. Are the Democrats stuck with a bench that is one-deep? Are all of their eggs really in the Hillary basket?
Click to expand...

Rham Emanuel, Chuck Schumer and I hung Joe Biden would be super fun to have as Predident. If I were a democrat I'd vote for him in the primary just to lighten things up. He's as qualified and capable as anyone and a good sense of humor doesn't mean he's not a decent guy or not smart.
 
Somebody will come out of nowhere.
 
cpwill said:
Measured in terms of items like ability to build broad bases of support, national infrastructure, and the like. Are the Democrats stuck with a bench that is one-deep? Are all of their eggs really in the Hillary basket?
Click to expand...

The Dems may be "one deep"....but the GOP is zero-deep with the current group of clowns running for their nomination. Unless someone comes out of the woodwork....this election is going to be a cakewalk. There isn't a single "Front runner" candidate in the GOP that even stands a chance. They might as well run Sarah Palin....at least she would make it interesting.
 
disneydude said:
The Dems may be "one deep"....but the GOP is zero-deep with the current group of clowns running for their nomination. Unless someone comes out of the woodwork....this election is going to be a cakewalk. There isn't a single "Front runner" candidate in the GOP that even stands a chance. They might as well run Sarah Palin....at least she would make it interesting.
Click to expand...

:yawn: baseless bluster. The GOP has a fairly good bench at this point of substantive governors who have actually managed to do things. Bush and Christie both have problems with the party, which is why they probably won't be the nominee. Walker and Jindal both have excellent records (Walker has won three elections in a purple state and taken on public unions, Jindal was so obviously going to win reelection last time around that the national Democrats didn't even bother to back anyone against him, and has dramatic education reforms to his name) and national name recognition. Rubio's experience in leadership is in holding the post of Speaker of the House in Florida, rather than the Governorship, but he's the best communicator on either side of the aisle at this point.

Meanwhile, Clinton's strength is that she A) has convinced Democrats that she is inevitable as their nominee and B) she has a lot of money. She's not a good politician, she doesn't have a good track record of accomplishment, and she doesn't even seem to have an organizing principle to her campaign other than "It's My Turn To Be President", which turns off the Democrat base.

But hey, if you need to Believe in order to swallow your pride and pull the lever for the Candidate From Goldman Sachs.... :) You do what you gotta do. :)
 
Two that jump to mind that have a legitimate shot at the Primary....

Elizabeth Warren - I think there's a good chance, if there's no other strong "base" candidate, that she could challenge Hillary in the primary. I don't know if she'd take her, but I think she has a reasonable shot. I don't think she has a good shot in the Genreal.

Jim Webb - If National Defense/National Security continue to be an important issue going into the primary, I think Webb could be a very strong sleeper. His chances improve if Hillary gets tied to more and more scandals that seem to raise some eye brows across both aisle, like the current email situation. I think Webb could pose as an interesting general election challenge as well and have a very good shot. His military background, as well as his connection to the Reagan White House, could help him bridge the gap to independents/moderates/diseffected Republicans, especially if the opponent is Jeb.
 
They have almost no other option, but you could point to a Webb gaining traction.

God knows how, but Hillary will have to throw a few bones to the populists by selecting a Sanders or a Warren-substitute (since it is doubtful she would end her yet young political career as VP). This is especially difficult, given that unless an incoming administration wants a Cheney-like VP (and Democrats are especially allergic to this), then all it is is a symbolic move that down the road policy proposals will keep progressives in mind.
 
cpwill said:
:yawn: baseless bluster. The GOP has a fairly good bench at this point of substantive governors who have actually managed to do things. Bush and Christie both have problems with the party, which is why they probably won't be the nominee. Walker and Jindal both have excellent records (Walker has won three elections in a purple state and taken on public unions, Jindal was so obviously going to win reelection last time around that the national Democrats didn't even bother to back anyone against him, and has dramatic education reforms to his name) and national name recognition. Rubio's experience in leadership is in holding the post of Speaker of the House in Florida, rather than the Governorship, but he's the best communicator on either side of the aisle at this point.

Meanwhile, Clinton's strength is that she A) has convinced Democrats that she is inevitable as their nominee and B) she has a lot of money. She's not a good politician, she doesn't have a good track record of accomplishment, and she doesn't even seem to have an organizing principle to her campaign other than "It's My Turn To Be President", which turns off the Democrat base.

But hey, if you need to Believe in order to swallow your pride and pull the lever for the Candidate From Goldman Sachs.... :) You do what you gotta do. :)
Click to expand...

LOL....none of the current GOP lot can hold a candle in the GE. You guys might as well nominate Cruz beause he stands as much chance as any of the others. The reality is, the one one who stands a chance in the GE (assuming Hilary runs) is Christie....and he will never get close to getting the nomination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom