2016 US Presidential Election

18 months or so out and this is already getting very interesting.

This is a list of current Democratic Party nominations.
Lincoln Chafee (fmr Governor of Rhode Island)
Hillary Clinton (Mrs #42, fmr Senator for New York, fmr Secretary of State)
Martin O'Malley (fmr Governor of Maryland)
Bernie Sanders (US Senator from Vermont)

So basically, Hillary and three other people you'll likely never hear of again.

Otoh, this is a list of current Republican Party nominations.
Jeb Bush (election fixing son of #41, brother of #43, fmr Governor of Florida)
Ben Carson (Pediatric Neurosurgeon)
Ted Cruz (Senator from Texas)
Carly Fiorina (Former CEO of Hewlett-Packard)
Lindsey Graham (Senator from South Carolina)
Mike Huckabee (bass playing fmr Governor of Arkansas)
George Pataki (fmr Governor of New York)
Rand Paul (Ron's son, Senator from Kentucky)
Rick Perry (fmr Governor of Texas)
Marco Rubio (Senator from Florida)
Rick Santorum (fmr Senator from Pennsylvania)
Donald Trump (current owner of the world's worst hair).

On the GOP side in particular, I'm really looking forward to the jostling.

But I still expect a Bush / Clinton rematch atm.

With regards why I see Jeb getting the Republican nomination -

Firstly, I think Jeb will have the best $$$ raising ability of the candidates on that side.

Second, it will be a case of dynasty vs dynasty (for that reason I think he will be considered the strongest candidate).

And tbh I just don't see Donald being (a) taken as a serious credible alternative to Jeb, or (b) lasting the distance without some form of moment that scuttles him. Just ask Howard Dean. Yeeaaahhh!
 
Last edited:
There's always Hubby

I think Bill Clinton earns over $100M pa just on the speech circuit that was in 2013, I would say this is probably pocket money.

It wont be an issue of money with either that is certain.

MTR
 
It wont be an issue of money with either that is certain.
I think in days past people did put a lot of their own money into campaigns.... the Kennedy's certainly did. Ross Perot is another that comes to mind.

But realistically you don't fund high-9-figure campaigns (if not 10 figures this time around) out of your own pocket - you rely on OPM.
 
I think in days past people did put a lot of their own money into campaigns.... the Kennedy's certainly did. Ross Perot is another that comes to mind.

But realistically you don't fund high-9-figure campaigns (if not 10 figures this time around) out of your own pocket - you rely on OPM.
I agree, and these people all have contacts with money, from super stars, celebs, singers you name it they got it, that's why I don't believe money will be an issue for either.

My gut tells me the Republicans may get in this time.

Sorry, change the subject for a moment, onto Aussie politics, anyone watch this.
Definitely back stabbing, nasty stuff

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-...d-false-hope-before-ousting-him-as-pm/6547226

Sorry back to topic:)

MTR
 
I think they should ban Bush's and Clintons running for President. It's not good that 2-3 families have a lock on the White House. They could amend the Constitution to prevent presidential dynasties by stating something like 'any immediate family member of a former president is ineligible to run for the presidency'. The Constitution already disqualifies those who are not native born citizens, younger than 35 or have already served two terms. It should be amended to prevent dynasties.
 
I think they should ban Bush's and Clintons running for President. It's not good that 2-3 families have a lock on the White House. They could amend the Constitution to prevent presidential dynasties by stating something like 'any immediate family member of a former president is ineligible to run for the presidency'. The Constitution already disqualifies those who are not native born citizens, younger than 35 or have already served two terms. It should be amended to prevent dynasties.
Jeb bush will be smashed in the elections..
As for Hillary, everyone knows she was the one running the show behind the scenes when her husband was in power, so that, according to my argument, should disqualify her as she has already served 2 consecutive terms:D Nevertheless, she will be a rampant winner come election time.
 
I'm surprised that Chris Christie isn't running. He seems to be on the lower side of crazy compared to many of the other Republicans (although I'm not a huge fan of all his policies either).

My vote goes to Jill Stein though :p
 
It's going to get interesting,Hillary-Clinton in 2014 made a lot of money from speeches,$10.2 mil and half of that came from companies that are chained linked too federal lobbyists,the speaking fee from Cisco-Systems
325k,Qualcomm Inc 125k,Biotechnology Industry Organization 335k,but the total lobbying some run above 20 mil ,down too 3.450mil,and some of those are supporters of the trade in the wind deal known as "Trans-Pacific-Partnership",a lot of greenbacks are already in place to take Hillary all the way..inho..
 
You are also required to have been a permanent resident in the US for at least 14 years.
Yes but my point is that dynasties shouldn't be allowed. They are a canary in the coal mine for larger political troubles. The founders didn't want a dynasty. George Washington was picked to be the first president in significant part because he had no children who could pose a succession threat. God forbid we have a Presidential election between Chelsea Clinton and P. Bush in 20 years time.
 
Yes but my point is that dynasties shouldn't be allowed.
I don't see them as an issue for the following reasons.

Firstly, I think depriving someone of their birthright to run for President would likely infringe on a fundamental right of natural born US citizens. The country where anyone can be President - well except those who happen to be a close relation or descendant of one, that is? I don't see it happening.

That aside, I think you're making too much of the importance of a political dynasty in a system like the US (and how it might otherwise suggest a concentration of power).

The Democrats and the Republicans both want the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. To give them the best chance of that they want a candidate they can (a) all rally behind, and (b) that appeals to the X% of voters in the middle who actually turn out and who are swing voters. It so happens that in recent times, often said candidates have been relatives (by marriage or blood) of persons previously elected President. Which, on the assumption these people are qualified to be President (as much as one can be qualified), makes a bit of sense since name recognition matters - both in terms of votes and fundraising.

But, the POTUS is still only one person.

And for all the power of the most powerful person in the world, it's not like Australia where our PM is (by convention) the leader of the largest party in the House of Reps and (far more often than not) has control - either directly or indirectly - of the Senate.

In the US, the House and the Senate are different beasts to the Electoral College. That is both a check and a balance on unfettered POTUS power. Yes there are times when the power is all in the hands of one party of the other, but it is much more the case in recent decades that it is not.



Source: wiki.


[Political dynasties] are a canary in the coal mine for larger political troubles..
Imo the canary in the coalmine for larger troubles in US politics is voter apathy.

Voter turnout (% of those eligible) in US Presidential elections -

1960 - 62.8%
1964 - 61.4%
1968 - 60.7%
1972 - 55.1%
1976 - 53.6%
1980 - 52.8%
1984 - 53.3%
1988 - 50.3%
1992 - 55.2%
1996 - 49.0%
2000 - 50.3%
2004 - 55.7%
2008 - 57.1%
2012 - 54.9%

Clinton won the 1992 election with 43% of the vote (Ross Perot split the vote that year) - which on a 55.2% turnout equates to ~22.7% of all eligible US voters actually voting for their new President.
 
Last edited:
Top