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.
A columnist in the Boston Herald recently made a suggestion that Elizabeth “Dances with Moonbats” Warren just fell face first into a big cow patty left for her by Hillary.
The columnist said that by accepting the made up leadership position offered to her by Harry Reid, Princess Crockajawea just lost the “outsider” tag she likes to slap on her headdress when smoking the peace pipe with her lefty fans. She’s now tied even more directly to Washington and what happens for the next two years under Obama because she is part of party leadership.
Hillary! will argue that she’s the “real outsider”, not Warren.
Will black Democrats rally behind a ticket with one white pseudo-Indian woman and one Hispanic male on it?
Don’t be suprised if it is Castro/Warren.
Interesting.
I don't think Warren has the necessary political skills yet, and could see her flaming out early.
Then again, inexperience certainly didn't stop Obama.
de Blasio '16
He’s a white guy
McGovern Part II.
I agree. Up until a few months ago, I thought it was a foregone conclusion that Hillary would run. However, after her embarrassing book tour, and the fact that none of the candidates she campaigned for this year won their races, I suspect that a lot of Democrats are now looking elsewhere. They probably feel that Hillary's best days are behind her, and she no longer has the "star power" she once had. By lining up behind Elizabeth Warren, they feel they can still make the case for a "historic" presidential candidate, and therefore no longer need Hillary. This leaves her with a tough choice. Hillary's enormous ego still tells her that she's entitled to the presidency. On the other hand, she can't bear the thought of running for the nomination, only to be rejected by her own party yet again. Her advisers just may tell her it's time to call it quits while she still has some of her pride intact.
A columnist in the Boston Herald recently made a suggestion that Elizabeth “Dances with Moonbats” Warren just fell face first into a big cow patty left for her by Hillary.
The columnist said that by accepting the made up leadership position offered to her by Harry Reid, Princess Crockajawea just lost the “outsider” tag she likes to slap on her headdress when smoking the peace pipe with her lefty fans. She’s now tied even more directly to Washington and what happens for the next two years under Obama because she is part of party leadership.
Hillary! will argue that she’s the “real outsider”, not Warren
________________
Yeah well Howie Carr from the Herald didn’t think she would make senator. Wrong again Hoooowwwwiiie!
They are going to run into problems with this shrill lefist, who faked her way into the senate. Sure, the media and the whole liberal pop culture machine will act in concert with the dem party, but I just dont see this as easy as pushing Obama; “Your rascist” works better than “Your sexist”, and even people are getting tired of the same schtick after 6 years.
America will absolutely LOVE me.
Whutinheck does this Warren woman have to offer as a candidate for POTUS, other than supposedly being 1/32 Indian?
This socialist hates corporations.
The Dems may or may not anoint Hillary, but they absolutely will NOT take their chances with this New England femiflake. (yeah, femiflake - I just made that up).
I agree with this guy
Is that a real picture? I mean, is that really her huband and grandchildren? It looks so incredibly forced and uncomfortable.
And creepy, if I must say.
I assume it’s real, there are dozens like it on the net.
McGovern more charismatic than Humphrey?
Dukakis more charismatic than Hart?
Kerry more charismatic than Dean?
Sorry, I don’t see it.
I’ll give them Carter over Henry Jackson in charisma, but surely Henry Jackson had more gravitas.
Obama over Clinton in charisma, yes.
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.