Posted on 11/17/2014 2:37:16 PM PST by thetallguy24
In just two years, Americans will be voting for our next president. Many, many potential Republican contenders are already positioning themselves to run. On the other hand, it appears that Hillary Clinton is the presumptive nominee for the Democrats. If you really try to understand how the Democrat Party works, this won’t be the case.
Democrats Don’t Like To Play Next In Line
Republicans for many election cycles have used this method in selecting their non-incumbent candidate, and it has always been someone who was a heavy weight and usually came in second in the previous primary or election. Nixon in 1960/1968 as a former Vice President was next in line. Reagan nearly took out Ford in 1976 and, with a few exceptions, was a shoe in for 1980. George H.W. Bush finished 2nd in 1980 and was the Vice President, so he was perfectly positioned for 1988. Bob Dole had been waiting in line for years as a long-time Senator, 1976 Vice Presidential candidate, and 1988 primary runner-up. John McCain was another long-time Senator and 2000 primary runner up. Finally, Mitt Romney was the runner-up by popular vote in 2008. Even now, many insiders are assuming the next in line candidate to be Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, or (God forbid) Mitt Romney, again.
Democrats tend to shy away from this game for a simple reason: it doesn’t work well. In the past 50 years, the Democrats have chosen three candidates who would be considered next in line, and they all lost. Hubert Humphrey lost to Nixon in 1968, Walter Mondale lost in a landslide to Reagan in 1984, and, Al Gore lost a close race to George W. Bush in 2000.
In all other cases in the past 50 years, Democrats have rejected establishment, next in line candidates for newer, younger, more charismatic figures. They rejected Hubert Humphrey in 1972 in favor of George McGovern, Henry “Scoop” Jackson in 1976 in favor of Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart in 1988 in favor of Michael Dukakis, and Howard Dean in 2004 in favor of John Kerry. 1992 was more of a free for all because the next in line candidates didn’t want to run against Bush, but Democrats still chose a younger and more charismatic candidate in Bill Clinton. Of course in 2008, Hillary Clinton, the odds-on favorite was rejected in favor of a younger, less well-known, more charismatic candidate in Barack Obama. With the strategy, Democrats have a much higher success rate, with three (Carter, Clinton, and Obama) winning the presidency. If the history of Democrat Party nominations tells us anything, the odds are very much against Hillary.
Democrats Can Replace Her
Many Democrats wanted to break the glass ceiling and elect the first female President in 2008. Hillary Clinton was essentially the only possible option. Unfortunately for her, Democrats decided they wanted the first mixed-race President even more. 2016 gives Democrats a newer and fresher female option that can continue to fight against the phony “Republican war on women”, and Elizabeth Warren fits the bill.
The National Journal seems to disagree. http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-elizabeth-warren-probably-isn-t-running-for-president-20141116
But, one horrible Senator is now serving two terms as President.
Well the Chicago Mob took down the Clinton Crime Family in 2008.
So Baraq 2.0 is very possible....
As for the Castros, no question.
People will see how obnoxious it is in supposed red texas it really is in san Antonio.
La Raza. Get It straight.
The Castros have tried so hard to be squeaky clean. We know they aren’t, but the LIVs don’t.
Wow!
Whatta ticket!
Did anyone ever hear that the Indians and the Mexicans were at each other’s throats for 300 years in the Southwest?
The reason Geronimo lived on the U.S. side was his far greater hatred of the Mexican Army!
The ultimate Grievance Gang! You took our land! We want goodies!
Just hilarious. Can’t wait to see her do the campfire dance.
There is still a year left for Hillary to be re-habilitated....
Castro. That’s perfect!
I tend to agree with the article. Hillary’s window to the Presidency is closing. Her health is an issue. Her age, fair or not, will be an issue. She’s been on the scene since 1992, an eternity in politics. A number of people are simply tired of her. The nail in the coffin, though, is the fact that the Democratic Party has gone hard, hard left in recent years. Hillary is seen as downright conservative by some in Democratic circles now.
2016 gives Democrats a newer and fresher female option that can continue to fight against the phony “Republican war on women”, and Elizabeth Warren fits the bill.
Wait, they want a candidate who can fight against a
PHONY? “republican war n women”.
That has to be some kind of oxy-moron.
Next Democrat to run for office will have a Latino name! Obama wants all them illegals for that reason. Brown is the new black.
Yes, I think so.
I think its phony according to the author, but the Republican war on women is something the Democrats still want to propagandize.
Yep. Warren is the one I’ve been concerned about since she won her current job.
However you want to define "base," the candidate who may be the darling of the party's ideological core isn't necessarily the party's choice for the nomination.
Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich or Liz Warren isn't that much more likely to get the Democratic nomination than Steve Forbes or Pat Buchanan or Herman Cain or Pat Robertson was to get the Republican nomination (a little more likely since they managed to get elected to office, but not much).
Hillary may crash and burn, but my take is that other challengers would split the vote among themselves. Within the Democratic Party, Blacks and Latinos can get on the Hillary train, as can White women and White men. If it's not Hillary, each group will demand a candidate from their own group. The different candidates would cancel out, leaving Hillary the nominee.
Castro?
As in Fidel or that creep from Cleveland(?) who held girls hostage for years?
To me Kucinich/Sanders appear as the Ron Paul of the Dems. Whereas Warren appears as the the Ted Cruz of the Dems.
I don’t expect Hillary to win in 2016 for the simple reason is that she is an old bag, and now looks like an old bag.
Fauxcahontas Warren is another loser.
democRATS have a habit of electing back benchers. If it’s going a broad, look to the second string of candidates. Maybe that loopy dyke mayor in Texas....or more likely Jennifer Granholm even though she’s not an NBC they will trot out, neither was Bath House Barry too.
I would prefer to run against Princess Spreading Bull than Hillarious.
The first 1/32nd native american president. Madame paleface Liarwatha.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.