Super hard to win as a democrat in new york

It's my perception that the GOP values (overvalues?) experience leading to more established candidates. That perception is no doubt slanted by recent elections that tried to use that line so I am taking my own thoughts with a grain of salt.

Maybe she squeaks through with a few extra delegates here and there, but there's no guarantee it's enough to win. In any case spotting her a few extra delegates would not cause her to "run away" with the Presidency, it'd still be a long primary fight that she'd narrowly end up on top of.

I agree she's a strong candidate, but it's not because people "love" her. Her other strengths more than make up for it, however, so I don't really think it matters. And it's not as if there's another Obama on the horizon who could really take advantage of the "emotion gap". Most politicians are pretty bland, it was only the Obama/Clinton contrast that accentuated this perception. Maybe if Christie survives unscathed, he might be able to inspire more "passion" if not exactly "love".

From 538: The Republican "Next In Line" Myth

Her ability to raise money alone makes her a strong candidate. She's likeable enough .

Just lol @ this entire article. It's either an elaborate troll or he's narrowly defining next-in-line to an absurdly small meaning. If you were to poll people "name 5 people who are likely to get the GOP nominee in the next election" at this time in the cycle, it's telling me that no one would've mentioned Ronald Reagan in '78, Richard Nixon in '66, ANY OF THE ALLEGEDLY NOT NEXT-IN-LINE players? It's almost like what "next-in-line" means went over his head. Hint: it's not one person.

Edit: two years may be too late, but feel free to sub in 4 if you like

Yeah but if you're saying top five then the only time the democrats didn't nominate one of those dudes in the last 50 years was Clinton

Not sure Obama was top 5 at this time in 2006.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/18/us...ama.html?_r=2&

Right, I realized after about a minute following hitting send that the 2 year thing didn't apply to any Dems other than Clinton that I can think of; which is why I ninja edited 4 in there. :P

Nixon wasn't on anyone's top five list in '64

I assume you mean because he didn't run in '64.

He was definitely a huge figure in American politics at the time.

Like it wouldn't be UNTHINKABLE if Mitt Romney was POTUS in 2020 even if he didn't run this upcoming cycle. The difference is Nixon was considerably younger; if I added correctly Romney would be 73 years old at the start of 2020 term and Nixon was only 56 years old in 1968 in spite of being a national figure most of the decade+ prior. All of George HW Bush, Dole, McCain would've been absurdly old to run again the next cycle and Romney would be ~absurdly old in 2020.

Yeah but these are like two different things. McCain was a well known political figure in 2004 (or 2006) but no one thought he was going to get the nomination in 2008.

edit: and by absurdly old you mean McCain aged?

No one thought McCain? The rest of the field was all way weaker.

So...you think that McCain was a higher-profile candidate than Obama in 2006? lol? McCain was trading around 5% on intrade

Really don't get why Riverman et. al. think Hillary is such a strong campaigner. 2008 was very badly handled despite her supposed elite team of advisers, she's shrill and unlikeable, and for millennials the magic of the Clinton years is ancient history.

Biggest advantage Hillary has is that she's going to troll the ugly, bigoted side of the Rs the same way the black guy did. Zero chance team #legitrape gets through an election without making some seriously misogynistic cracks on a monthly basis.

I find it hard to believe no one thought the person 2nd most likely to win the nomination in 2000 had much chance of being the nominee in 2004, intrade be damned.

Yes, Obama is basically a Third Wayer. He's typically socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Since politics is a contest over economics and most social issues are a sideshow to that, yes, I think that makes him on the centre right.

I mean, seattlelou, your question about the "grand bargain" is kind of why I detest your posts. Clearly anything that attempts to undermine and unravel the achievements of progressives cannot be on the left side of politics, so yes, the "grand bargain" favoured the right.

I said "you seem to be" suggesting something about different governments. It's not worth arguing over tbh.

I should instead have focused on your notion that the left is constrained by being in government. This is nonsense. The left isn't in government and although Obama's very moderate programme is being constrained by rigid obstructionism from the far right, he isn't proposing anything particularly leftwing in the first place.

I mean, it's just truer to say that radical rightwingers can propose, and have some hope of achieving, a much more extreme programme because the whole parliament is somewhat conservative, and nothing from the left stands much chance because the equivalents of Cruz/Paul on the left are nowhere near power.

They want to win?

I mean, seattlelou, just because the rightwing noise machine keeps calling Democrats Marxists doesn't actually mean they are. It's just how the paranoid style works in politics. You keep accusing your opponents of being something your base fears until it has become entrenched in their understanding of the political sphere.

No socialist thinks Obama is a socialist. He's barely even a social democrat.

No socialist wants a big boost to the health insurance industry. No socialist wants to cut Social Security at all. No socialist is for cutting government spending in a downturn because socialists are not bug**** insane.

He was definitely top 5. In fact, I'd be pretty surprised if he wasn't already #2 in betting markets at this time in 06 (if those markets existed back then). The idea that Obama came out of nowhere really isn't true. Everybody knew about him after he spoke at Kerry's convention.

Fortunately no socialist is getting elected as President in this country cause we are not bug**** insane.

He didn't come out of nowhere but it is highly unusual that he was the nominee from a 2004 perspective. He hadn't even been elected US Senator yet. One does not simply go from making good speeches at a political convention to being POTUS. It would not have dawned on anyone in early 2004 that Barack Obama would be POTUS in 2008. More like "well, if this guy wins his Senate race and does a good job in office he looks like a great 2012 contender." Who knew he was the GOAT campaigner? In 2006, yes.

Yeah, agree with that.