The "Obama" of 2016

[Jake]

In 2007, few people were thinking about Barack Obama as a presidential candidate. People with political savvy saw him as a 2012 nom if Hillary lost or, more likely, a 2016 guy. Obviously, things didn't turn out that way.

 

What are the up-and-comers you see, on either side of the aisle, that might make a surprise run to candidacy and/or presidency?

 

I saw an article on Politico about Elizabeth Warren considering a run for president. Apparently she isn't considered a serious contender, but this is Politico we're talking about - it was all horse race stuff. As an anti-BigBank person with major intellectual credibility and a good deal of charisma, it really wouldn't shock me if she became more popular and made a run.

 

I think 2016 is probably too soon, but look out for Cory Booker. That dude is seriously charismatic. While he has fairly liberal positions across the board, he is able to frame things in a centrist way, especially in regard to finance. He talks about the economy in a way that might appeal to people. A bit like Bill Clinton in that regard.

 

On the Republican side, there seems to have been a lot more speculation already and thus fewer surprises. However, I think Paul Ryan has been forgotten in all of this. I am no fan, but I think we haven't seen the best of him yet. It wouldn't shock me if he comes out ready for primetime in 2016. At his best, I think he can appeal to people.

 

Christie remains the favorite, it seems, for the Republicans but I feel like all this hype is bound to doom him somehow.

[Jake]

I would also add Jon Huntsman, but I'm not sure if he'll even run. He's not in the good graces of the current R party, but I think he would win the general if he was nominated. I would even have to think long and hard about voting for him, depending on the D candidate.

 

I think his best chance to run and win is if the R party favorability gets even worse, with something like a big buzzkill in 2014 where they lose seats. In that case, a moderate guy that isn't appealing to the furthest of the far right folks might become more popular.

[StrangeSox]

Obama announced his campaign in January of 2007 iirc.

 

Hillary was sunk by hiring that idiot Mark Penn and of course the Iraq war vote. I don't really see anything comparable for her at this point, and I don't really see any strong up-and-comers. I'd definitely back Warren but I don't know that she could hold up in a national campaign. She isn't a natural politician.

 

Who knows on the republican side. Probably Christie, but he'll have a tough time in the primaries.

[Jake]

Obama announced his campaign in January of 2007 iirc.

 

Hillary was sunk by hiring that idiot Mark Penn and of course the Iraq war vote. I don't really see anything comparable for her at this point, and I don't really see any strong up-and-comers. I'd definitely back Warren but I don't know that she could hold up in a national campaign. She isn't a natural politician.

 

Who knows on the republican side. Probably Christie, but he'll have a tough time in the primaries.

 

I suppose I should have said that few thought of him as a serious candidate. It was widely seen that this was like a practice run to get his name out, build his profile, and maybe get a VP spot

 

[NorthSideSox72]

In 2007, few people were thinking about Barack Obama as a presidential candidate. People with political savvy saw him as a 2012 nom if Hillary lost or, more likely, a 2016 guy. Obviously, things didn't turn out that way.

 

What are the up-and-comers you see, on either side of the aisle, that might make a surprise run to candidacy and/or presidency?

 

I saw an article on Politico about Elizabeth Warren considering a run for president. Apparently she isn't considered a serious contender, but this is Politico we're talking about - it was all horse race stuff. As an anti-BigBank person with major intellectual credibility and a good deal of charisma, it really wouldn't shock me if she became more popular and made a run.

 

I think 2016 is probably too soon, but look out for Cory Booker. That dude is seriously charismatic. While he has fairly liberal positions across the board, he is able to frame things in a centrist way, especially in regard to finance. He talks about the economy in a way that might appeal to people. A bit like Bill Clinton in that regard.

 

On the Republican side, there seems to have been a lot more speculation already and thus fewer surprises. However, I think Paul Ryan has been forgotten in all of this. I am no fan, but I think we haven't seen the best of him yet. It wouldn't shock me if he comes out ready for primetime in 2016. At his best, I think he can appeal to people.

 

Christie remains the favorite, it seems, for the Republicans but I feel like all this hype is bound to doom him somehow.

I liked Huntsman more than any GOP candidate in the last few cycles. That said, I don't think he runs again. He was never too good at the fundraising end of things, he's looked at as too liberal by the current party (which is hilarious), and he doesn't have that powerful in-the-room presence that others do.

 

[pettie4sox]

When is the last time the GOP put out a respectable candidate for President?

[mr_genius]

Jeff Sessions ( R )

Edited November 12, 2013 by mr_genius

[bmags]

When is the last time the GOP put out a respectable candidate for President?

 

2012?

[NorthSideSox72]

When is the last time the GOP put out a respectable candidate for President?

Loaded question of course. But I thought Huntsman was that. He just ran at the wrong time. He's more conservative than Reagan ever was, but he was scoffed at as too liberal in 2012.

 

[Jake]

I liked Huntsman more than any GOP candidate in the last few cycles. That said, I don't think he runs again. He was never too good at the fundraising end of things, he's looked at as too liberal by the current party (which is hilarious), and he doesn't have that powerful in-the-room presence that others do.

 

I'm reading a book that transcribed the campaign managers' meeting after the 2012 election (this is a real thing: http://www.iop.harvard.edu/2012-campaign-d...ers-conference)

 

They all laughed about how Huntsman speaking Chinese clearly harmed his campaign and confirmed his supposed liberalism

[pettie4sox]

2012?

 

lol yeah... Romney was a real weiner.

 

[bmags]

lol yeah... Romney was a real weiner.

 

 

He was a legitimate candidate that was undercut by his own side. Had he run on his actual credentials he would have been fine, though likely still lost. Instead he basically had to constantly avoid any of his accomplishments and basically run against himself.

[mr_genius]

Loaded question of course. But I thought Huntsman was that. He just ran at the wrong time. He's more conservative than Reagan ever was, but he was scoffed at as too liberal in 2012.

 

Huntsman was one of the worst candidates I have ever seen. Totally unelectable. He couldn't even muster 1% support in the primaries. Huntsman, if he managed to win the GOP primaries, would suffer the worst electoral loss in U.S. history.

 

Anyways, how is he "more conservative" than Reagan? Please tell us, NorthsideSox72.

[Brian]

I still think it's too early for 2016. Wasn't Guliani considered a fav early and he went nowhere.

[Brian]

Huntsman was one of the worst candidates I have ever seen. Totally unelectable. He couldn't even muster 1% support in the primaries. Huntsman, if he managed to win the GOP primaries, would suffer the worst electoral loss in U.S. history.

 

If his daughters were at his side, it wouldn't hurt.

[bmags]

Ha, I forgot how poorly Huntsman did. I feel like even Kucinech found more support.

[NorthSideSox72]

Anyways, how is he "more conservative" than Reagan? Please tell us, NorthsideSox72.

Seriously? If you took the blinders off and looked past the Fox narrative, and looked at policy stances, you'd see it.

 

Fiscal policy? Reagan wanted to cut taxes, and did, but he also increased spending pretty dramatically. Furthermore, he was basically the pioneer of block grants to the states. Huntsman's tax plans called for far deeper cuts in taxes AND government spending than Reagan even ever hinted at.

 

Immigration policy? Reagan was in favor of amnesty, and basically starting over. Huntsman wanted, to a limited extent, to remove lots of people (he was never in on the send-them-all-back train though).

 

Foreign Policy? Huntsman was close to libertarian in his views on this, wanted the US to significantly roll back the war machine. Reagan loved the idea of making the military bigger, to intimidate the Soviets and push them off the map economically through competition (and to Reagan's credit, this actually worked, as part of what caused the USSR's collapse). In the current GOP world, it is hard to say which of those are more "conservative", since the Tea Party has this unspoken alamgam of the Rand Paul's and the Neo-Cons. So draw whatever you'd like here.

 

On social issues they were basically the same on abortion, affirmative action. Huntsman did break ranks on gay marriage, but really, there is nothing to compare with Reagan on that because the issue was never large enough to be on the radar during his Presidency.

 

Regulation? Reagan talked about making things better for small businesses, but that was primarily about tax structures. The amount of new business regulations that went in during the Reagan administration is huge. Huntsman made an emphasis of trying to focus on regulating fewer things, better.

 

The environment? This is a tough one to compare. Huntsman did break ranks again by acknowledging anthropogenic climate change... but his way of addressing it was heavily market-based. Reagan also was more into environmental protection than his cohorts at the time, and he oversaw large amounts of new protected lands being added to the system and more regulation of pollution - both of which are now the more "liberal" methods.

 

Need I go on?

 

 

[pettie4sox]

He was a legitimate candidate that was undercut by his own side. Had he run on his actual credentials he would have been fine, though likely still lost. Instead he basically had to constantly avoid any of his accomplishments and basically run against himself.

 

You have a point but him not having a spine showed a lot about his flip flopping nature.

 

How can you govern when you don't really have a platform to stand on?

Edited November 13, 2013 by pettie4sox

[Balta1701]

The environment? This is a tough one to compare. Huntsman did break ranks again by acknowledging anthropogenic climate change... but his way of addressing it was heavily market-based. Reagan also was more into environmental protection than his cohorts at the time, and he oversaw large amounts of new protected lands being added to the system and more regulation of pollution - both of which are now the more "liberal" methods.

I still think a much better summation of Ronald Reagan's view on the environment is ripping the Carter-era solar installations out of the White House.

[Jake]

Reagan basically used the military budget to stimulus his way out of an economic crisis

[caulfield12]

Seriously? If you took the blinders off and looked past the Fox narrative, and looked at policy stances, you'd see it.

 

Fiscal policy? Reagan wanted to cut taxes, and did, but he also increased spending pretty dramatically. Furthermore, he was basically the pioneer of block grants to the states. Huntsman's tax plans called for far deeper cuts in taxes AND government spending than Reagan even ever hinted at.

 

Immigration policy? Reagan was in favor of amnesty, and basically starting over. Huntsman wanted, to a limited extent, to remove lots of people (he was never in on the send-them-all-back train though).

 

Foreign Policy? Huntsman was close to libertarian in his views on this, wanted the US to significantly roll back the war machine. Reagan loved the idea of making the military bigger, to intimidate the Soviets and push them off the map economically through competition (and to Reagan's credit, this actually worked, as part of what caused the USSR's collapse). In the current GOP world, it is hard to say which of those are more "conservative", since the Tea Party has this unspoken alamgam of the Rand Paul's and the Neo-Cons. So draw whatever you'd like here.

 

On social issues they were basically the same on abortion, affirmative action. Huntsman did break ranks on gay marriage, but really, there is nothing to compare with Reagan on that because the issue was never large enough to be on the radar during his Presidency.

 

Regulation? Reagan talked about making things better for small businesses, but that was primarily about tax structures. The amount of new business regulations that went in during the Reagan administration is huge. Huntsman made an emphasis of trying to focus on regulating fewer things, better.

 

The environment? This is a tough one to compare. Huntsman did break ranks again by acknowledging anthropogenic climate change... but his way of addressing it was heavily market-based. Reagan also was more into environmental protection than his cohorts at the time, and he oversaw large amounts of new protected lands being added to the system and more regulation of pollution - both of which are now the more "liberal" methods.

 

Need I go on?

 

 

http://www.salon.com/2011/02/05/ronald_rea...d_south_africa/

 

Reagan did some mystifying things, like linking himself closely with the apartheid South African government and being one of the last in the world to resist using sanctions.

 

 

The 1980 grain embargo describes the policy enacted by the United States that banned the export of grain and technology to the Soviet Union in response to the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Initiated by the Carter administration in January 1980, the embargo was lifted by Ronald Reagan in April 1981. Tangible effects of the embargo were negligible, with the Soviet Union simply acquiring grain from alternative sources in South America and Europe.[1] Commodity prices dropped following the embargo, contributing to a severe farm crisis. wikipedia.com

 

Here's another example, where he sided with helping out American farmers in the heartland rather than adhering to Carter's political decision.

 

 

 

For what it's worth, Scarborough was on with Charlie Rose and asserts that Christie is the best GOP candidate for president in 2016. He pointed out the example of Obama not being 100% due to his brief time in the Senate and his lack of managerial/executive experience.

 

Pointed out the examples of Eisenhower (of course, due to his military experience, perhaps the most well-prepared since Andrew Jackson and U.S. Grant) and Reagan, who was of course governor/chief executive of California.

 

Pooh-poohed the focus on Cruz, Rand Paul and Rubio...kind of putting them all in that same "media superstar" box as Obama.

Edited November 14, 2013 by caulfield12

[NorthSideSox72]

Reagan basically used the military budget to stimulus his way out of an economic crisis

And push the Soviets over the cliff in the process. Taken together, that may have been the best thing he did as President. But it is really not a "conservative" method, since he was spending a ton of government money. Furthermore, he also dramatically increased spending on roads and infrastructure, as well as block grants to the states. He did a bunch of things that are often characterized as liberal policies.

 

[cabiness42]

And push the Soviets over the cliff in the process. Taken together, that may have been the best thing he did as President. But it is really not a "conservative" method, since he was spending a ton of government money. Furthermore, he also dramatically increased spending on roads and infrastructure, as well as block grants to the states. He did a bunch of things that are often characterized as liberal policies.

 

Many libertarians/fiscal conservatives will tell you that roads/infrastructure is one of the best ways for government to spend its money. It's just this modern ultra-right tea party group that's trying to get everybody to believe that all government spending is bad.

 

[southsider2k5]

And push the Soviets over the cliff in the process. Taken together, that may have been the best thing he did as President. But it is really not a "conservative" method, since he was spending a ton of government money. Furthermore, he also dramatically increased spending on roads and infrastructure, as well as block grants to the states. He did a bunch of things that are often characterized as liberal policies.

 

The crash of commodities prices was really the final straw for them.

[Balta1701]

And push the Soviets over the cliff in the process. Taken together, that may have been the best thing he did as President. But it is really not a "conservative" method, since he was spending a ton of government money. Furthermore, he also dramatically increased spending on roads and infrastructure, as well as block grants to the states. He did a bunch of things that are often characterized as liberal policies.

Going back at least to the 1950's, "Spending a lot more money on the defense department" sure seems like a policy I'd categorize as "conservative". I'm not sure how those things would have grouped in the 1930's.