Potential 2016 Presidential Matchups

[NYBURBS]

It's still a ways off, but it'd be interesting to eventually look back and see if anyone's early picks actually made it. It would be cool if people would give their reasoning for it, but I suppose just names will suffice, too.

My early money is on Rand Paul vs Hillary Clinton. Now, as some of you here know, I am a Ron Paul fan, so it's probably natural that I would think his son has a shot at the nomination. However, for better or worse, Rand is not Ron. He's more hawkish (to my dismay), but I also think his public image is more acceptable to a wider audience.

It's also interesting to note that he has been speaking a lot about the need for drug law reform, and how much damage they have done to the black communities around the country. Plus he has been at the forefront of the debate over presidential power, especially when it comes to the use of drones to kill Americans.


Clinton is a powerhouse in her own right. There are a lot of women, especially white democratic women, that felt robbed in '08. And Benghazi aside, I think her time as Secretary of State strengthened her image with many people.

[Stavros]

BBC Radio 4 last week produced a profile of Elizabeth Warren, speculating that she might challenge Hillary Clinton for the nomination. She came across as earnest, perhaps a little too earnest, and to me lacks the popular touch. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton has the 'celebrity' factor, and the strengths and weaknesses of her record in office. Perhaps the real motif was the assumption that the next Democrat nomination for the White House will be a woman.

Not sure if the link will work outside the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b042z1g0

[Turlington]

All of you should know by now I'd core for either Hillary or Elizabeth...even both. Bernie Sanders is on my list as well.

[NYBURBS]

BBC Radio 4 last week produced a profile of Elizabeth Warren, speculating that she might challenge Hillary Clinton for the nomination. She came across as earnest, perhaps a little too earnest, and to me lacks the popular touch. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton has the 'celebrity' factor, and the strengths and weaknesses of her record in office. Perhaps the real motif was the assumption that the next Democrat nomination for the White House will be a woman.

Not sure if the link will work outside the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b042z1g0

All of you should know by now I'd core for either Hillary or Elizabeth...even both. Bernie Sanders is on my list as well.

I'll have to read up some more on Warren, it would be interesting to see two high profile women vie for the democratic nomination, though I think Clinton is a force to be reckoned with. Who do you see for the Republicans? I know Jeb Bush's name was being thrown around, though I think nominating another Bush would be a guarantee of failure at the general election.

[Stavros]

I'll have to read up some more on Warren, it would be interesting to see two high profile women vie for the democratic nomination, though I think Clinton is a force to be reckoned with. Who do you see for the Republicans? I know Jeb Bush's name was being thrown around, though I think nominating another Bush would be a guarantee of failure at the general election.

If the analyses of the Obama election victories are right, the Republicans have to appeal to a broader section of younger Americans whose views on God and the Family were not carved in stone and presented to them by Charlton Heston. Whether or not they can find a candidate like that, I don't know, but the article I cited on Rand Paul a while ago suggests he might be that kind of candidate.

There is not much coverage of the Republicans in the UK, so most of what I know, which is not very much, is taken from foreign correspondents or the US media. Right now there seems to be more coverage in the media of Kim Kardashian's wardrobe, or the lack of it. Whether she will challenge Angelina Jolie for the White House remains to be seen, now that Ms Jolie has declared a mild interest in politics.

The danger for the Democrats is that a complacent attitude may lead them to believe the election is won before it has started. The economy might be in a better shape now than it was in 2010, but there are still too many people without work or a 'proper job' (ie not part-time, zero-hours contracts etc) and reliant on welfare for food -and as we know, when the election comes around the economy is the main player.

[NYBURBS]

The economy might be in a better shape now than it was in 2010, but there are still too many people without work or a 'proper job' (ie not part-time, zero-hours contracts etc) and reliant on welfare for food -and as we know, when the election comes around the economy is the main player.

Yea, the stock market has done well, and the real estate market has rebounded somewhat, but the job market is basically still in a depression. People can't even get a call back for an interview, never mind actually land a decent job. Student debt is also a huge issue, and with that the insane price for a 4 year college degree. Those will all be big issues in the next election.

[buttslinger]

Hillary has already picked out the drapes for the Oval Office, there's some bunker somewhere with her gameplan on chalkboards covering the next ten years.
The big question now is whether or not the Republicans take the Senate this November and make the next two years even more of a joke than the last four.

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politi...grp_ids=791149

I wonder what the over/under is on how long Kim and Kanye stay married?
Will they name their baby "Spinoff?"

[NYBURBS]

Hillary has already picked out the drapes for the Oval Office, there's some bunker somewhere with her gameplan on chalkboards covering the next ten years.
The big question now is whether or not the Republicans take the Senate this November and make the next two years even more of a joke than the last four.

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politi...grp_ids=791149

I wonder what the over/under is on how long Kim and Kanye stay married?
Will they name their baby "Spinoff?"

Interesting that they have Chris Christie at 10/1 still. That bridgegate scandal has damaged him severely. It might not force him from the governor's office, but I have a hard time seeing him pull off a successful run. Plus there's probably a load more shit on that guy waiting to come out.

[buttslinger]

Interesting that they have Chris Christie at 10/1 still. That bridgegate scandal has damaged him severely. It might not force him from the governor's office, but I have a hard time seeing him pull off a successful run. Plus there's probably a load more shit on that guy waiting to come out.

That betting site is actually in Ireland, or something, I don't even see a date on it, just take it as a Novelty........ but really, Rubio, Rand, Jeb???? one of the reasons Hillary looks like a shoe-in at this point is because the Republicans have nobody that the party can really get behind. The only exciting candidates are in the tea-party, and the Powers-that-Be in the GOP are not going to hand over the reins to somebody they don't own.
Christie would be a good Debater. His crime was passion, kinda like Bubba. But yeah, bridgegate made him appear laughable, which he definitely didn't want.
Another thing is all those big money donations to Karl Rove over the past two elections were totally wasted. Hillary has big money behind her.

Corporations would probably be wiser to use their money to keep certain Supreme Court Judges in futuristic Refrigeration Units of somekind, preserving their bodies into their late eighties. Just one Conservative Judge retirement could change a lot.

[Ben]

Ya know, I don't really care. I'm quite serious about that. I mean, it really doesn't matter who it is.
The country is run by: Bill Gates, Buffett, Larry Ellison, the Kochs, the Walton clan, Bloomberg, Adelson and Jeff Bezos.
And throw in the banks and oil companies for good measure.
Whenever you've concentrated wealth -- and wealth in America is becoming more and more concentrated -- you've concentrated power.
So, it really doesn't matter what Presidential puppet you have in the White House.
I mean, say you did get someone like a Ralph Nader in the oval office. He'd be up against a Congress who'd be absolutely opposed to him. He'd be in the oval office twiddling his thumbs.
Plus you have to address the issue of NAFTA. Ross Perot was right about NAFTA: