What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

What Democrats will be running against Hillary? (1 Viewer)

Widbil83

Footballguy
I see endless speculation already in every political thread about the GOP in 2016 but none about the Democrats. So who else will be running? Biden? Dean? Warren? The bench seems pretty thin.

 

Don Quixote

Footballguy
If Hillary passes, Martin O'Malley and Andrew Cuomo are a couple of others who could run. I think Warren would be the favorite in that case though.

 

Todd Andrews

Footballguy
If Hillary passes, Martin O'Malley and Andrew Cuomo are a couple of others who could run. I think Warren would be the favorite in that case though.
I think O Malley and Cuomo run for the VP nod, not because they realistically think they can get the nomination over Hillary.

 

NCCommish

Footballguy
If Hillary runs only someone from the left of her will try to run against her. It won't be Warren. She has made that pretty clear. Hillary is just another moderate republican in Democratic clothing. So all the corporate Dems will be thrilled with her. Only those of us who are really liberals will be looking for someone to move her to the left. There are a couple of governors I'd like to see run but the perception of Clinton's inevitability is going to cow a bunch of people. And it really pisses me off.

 

Megatron

Dingle!
Wouldn't the better question be, "Which emotionless, geriatric millionaire, who knows nothing of the common mans' struggles, will the republicans trot out there to oppose her?"

 

mquinnjr

Footballguy
Wouldn't the better question be, "Which emotionless, geriatric millionaire, who knows nothing of the common mans' struggles, will the republicans and democrats trot out there to oppose her?"
The folks at the top running for office, on both sides, are not wondering where their next meal is coming from.

 

timschochet

Footballguy
If Hillary runs only someone from the left of her will try to run against her. It won't be Warren. She has made that pretty clear. Hillary is just another moderate republican in Democratic clothing. So all the corporate Dems will be thrilled with her. Only those of us who are really liberals will be looking for someone to move her to the left. There are a couple of governors I'd like to see run but the perception of Clinton's inevitability is going to cow a bunch of people. And it really pisses me off.
Sorry NC, it's not going to happen- ever.

In the entire history of the United States, we've had exactly TWO liberal Presidents: Abraham Lincoln and FDR. And neither of them ran as a liberal. It took major catastrophes- the Civil War and the Great Depression- to move them to the left. The chances of a liberal actually running for the Presidency as a liberal and getting elected are nil IMO.

 

-fish-

Footballguy
O'Malley will run. He's got a pretty decent fundraising machine going. If Hillary isn't healthy enough, it will be him and Warren.

 

Homer J Simpson

I don't push
If Hillary runs only someone from the left of her will try to run against her. It won't be Warren. She has made that pretty clear. Hillary is just another moderate republican in Democratic clothing. So all the corporate Dems will be thrilled with her. Only those of us who are really liberals will be looking for someone to move her to the left. There are a couple of governors I'd like to see run but the perception of Clinton's inevitability is going to cow a bunch of people. And it really pisses me off.
Sorry NC, it's not going to happen- ever.In the entire history of the United States, we've had exactly TWO liberal Presidents: Abraham Lincoln and FDR. And neither of them ran as a liberal. It took major catastrophes- the Civil War and the Great Depression- to move them to the left. The chances of a liberal actually running for the Presidency as a liberal and getting elected are nil IMO.
Liberal by what standards? Today's?

 

NCCommish

Footballguy
If Hillary runs only someone from the left of her will try to run against her. It won't be Warren. She has made that pretty clear. Hillary is just another moderate republican in Democratic clothing. So all the corporate Dems will be thrilled with her. Only those of us who are really liberals will be looking for someone to move her to the left. There are a couple of governors I'd like to see run but the perception of Clinton's inevitability is going to cow a bunch of people. And it really pisses me off.
Sorry NC, it's not going to happen- ever.

In the entire history of the United States, we've had exactly TWO liberal Presidents: Abraham Lincoln and FDR. And neither of them ran as a liberal. It took major catastrophes- the Civil War and the Great Depression- to move them to the left. The chances of a liberal actually running for the Presidency as a liberal and getting elected are nil IMO.
I disagree wholeheartedly. I think there is an opportunity here. The GOP has over played it's hand. And we elected someone very recently a lot of folks thought was a liberal to the presidency.

 

Soonerman

Footballguy
If Hillary runs only someone from the left of her will try to run against her. It won't be Warren. She has made that pretty clear. Hillary is just another moderate republican in Democratic clothing. So all the corporate Dems will be thrilled with her. Only those of us who are really liberals will be looking for someone to move her to the left. There are a couple of governors I'd like to see run but the perception of Clinton's inevitability is going to cow a bunch of people. And it really pisses me off.
Sorry NC, it's not going to happen- ever.

In the entire history of the United States, we've had exactly TWO liberal Presidents: Abraham Lincoln and FDR. And neither of them ran as a liberal. It took major catastrophes- the Civil War and the Great Depression- to move them to the left. The chances of a liberal actually running for the Presidency as a liberal and getting elected are nil IMO.
This is funny. Every president since Coolidge has been effectively and/or ideologically a liberal.

 

timschochet

Footballguy
If Hillary runs only someone from the left of her will try to run against her. It won't be Warren. She has made that pretty clear. Hillary is just another moderate republican in Democratic clothing. So all the corporate Dems will be thrilled with her. Only those of us who are really liberals will be looking for someone to move her to the left. There are a couple of governors I'd like to see run but the perception of Clinton's inevitability is going to cow a bunch of people. And it really pisses me off.
Sorry NC, it's not going to happen- ever.

In the entire history of the United States, we've had exactly TWO liberal Presidents: Abraham Lincoln and FDR. And neither of them ran as a liberal. It took major catastrophes- the Civil War and the Great Depression- to move them to the left. The chances of a liberal actually running for the Presidency as a liberal and getting elected are nil IMO.
This is funny. Every president since Coolidge has been effectively and/or ideologically a liberal.
I know what you're getting at. I could use a different standard and call each and every one of them conservatives as well.

But I'll stand by what I wrote. Lincoln and FDR were true liberals in office. Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama- all of them did some very liberal things, but I wouldn't call any of them liberal- centrist is a better definition for most of them. In any event, my main point is that the type of liberal that NC Commish wants (along the lines of Elizabeth Warren) is never going to be elected President, IMO.

 

Clifford

Footballguy
If Hillary runs only someone from the left of her will try to run against her. It won't be Warren. She has made that pretty clear. Hillary is just another moderate republican in Democratic clothing. So all the corporate Dems will be thrilled with her. Only those of us who are really liberals will be looking for someone to move her to the left. There are a couple of governors I'd like to see run but the perception of Clinton's inevitability is going to cow a bunch of people. And it really pisses me off.
Sorry NC, it's not going to happen- ever.

In the entire history of the United States, we've had exactly TWO liberal Presidents: Abraham Lincoln and FDR. And neither of them ran as a liberal. It took major catastrophes- the Civil War and the Great Depression- to move them to the left. The chances of a liberal actually running for the Presidency as a liberal and getting elected are nil IMO.
So Obama ran as a conservative? Do you read these?

 

Yankee23Fan

Fair Tax!
Tim, you have to help me out because you are stating as fact three things (and by that intimating a fourth) all of which make no sense.

1. FDR was liberal that didn't run for the office as a liberal.

You need to break this down a little more because I'm not sure you are saying what you are thinking you are saying.

2. Abraham Lincoln was a liberal

Now, I could ifight anyone when it comes to anything having to do with Abraham Lincoln. Hell, I'm fairly confident I could go toe to toe with any historian about his as well, including McCullough and Donald, and with that I say this - WTmF are you talking about?

3. Woodrow Wilson was a racist southern Democrat

Woodrow Wilson was an arsehat, I have no problem saying that. But southern Democrat? In 1913? Help me out here exactly what you mean because he was president of Princeton and led a progressive movement that led to alot of things that we wouldn't exactly call conservative

4. There have been no other "liberals" elected to the office of the President.

I would love to go down this rabbit hole with you because I can name about 5 right off of the top of my head. Although I guess where we get bogged down is definition of liberal.

So, we can either have a very long (and to many boring) talk on all of this, or you can simply, now, make it easy and just say that these particular posts were made not as fact, but specifically as your opinion. Because they aren't fact that you type.

 

Yankee23Fan

Fair Tax!
If Hillary runs only someone from the left of her will try to run against her. It won't be Warren. She has made that pretty clear. Hillary is just another moderate republican in Democratic clothing. So all the corporate Dems will be thrilled with her. Only those of us who are really liberals will be looking for someone to move her to the left. There are a couple of governors I'd like to see run but the perception of Clinton's inevitability is going to cow a bunch of people. And it really pisses me off.
Sorry NC, it's not going to happen- ever.

In the entire history of the United States, we've had exactly TWO liberal Presidents: Abraham Lincoln and FDR. And neither of them ran as a liberal. It took major catastrophes- the Civil War and the Great Depression- to move them to the left. The chances of a liberal actually running for the Presidency as a liberal and getting elected are nil IMO.
This is funny. Every president since Coolidge has been effectively and/or ideologically a liberal.
I know what you're getting at. I could use a different standard and call each and every one of them conservatives as well.

But I'll stand by what I wrote. Lincoln and FDR were true liberals in office. Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama- all of them did some very liberal things, but I wouldn't call any of them liberal- centrist is a better definition for most of them. In any event, my main point is that the type of liberal that NC Commish wants (along the lines of Elizabeth Warren) is never going to be elected President, IMO.
Ok, never mind. If you really believe this then all we are going to do is go round and round and at some point you will losen up and admit you could be wrong like always happens and we will have wasted about 10% of the board bandwidth getting there.

Let's do this - I am actually more and more convinced that the polity is closer to going the way NC wants then the way you are saying we would. I can see more and more liberal/progressive tendencies and desires that are drowning out other things. I think you can make a strong argument that a more liberal President is possible sooner than a true conservative.

 

cstu

Footballguy
2. Abraham Lincoln was a liberal

Now, I could ifight anyone when it comes to anything having to do with Abraham Lincoln. Hell, I'm fairly confident I could go toe to toe with any historian about his as well, including McCullough and Donald, and with that I say this - WTmF are you talking about?
Liberals want to use the government to make changes to American society. He's the definition of a liberal.

 

NCCommish

Footballguy
If Hillary runs only someone from the left of her will try to run against her. It won't be Warren. She has made that pretty clear. Hillary is just another moderate republican in Democratic clothing. So all the corporate Dems will be thrilled with her. Only those of us who are really liberals will be looking for someone to move her to the left. There are a couple of governors I'd like to see run but the perception of Clinton's inevitability is going to cow a bunch of people. And it really pisses me off.
Sorry NC, it's not going to happen- ever.

In the entire history of the United States, we've had exactly TWO liberal Presidents: Abraham Lincoln and FDR. And neither of them ran as a liberal. It took major catastrophes- the Civil War and the Great Depression- to move them to the left. The chances of a liberal actually running for the Presidency as a liberal and getting elected are nil IMO.
This is funny. Every president since Coolidge has been effectively and/or ideologically a liberal.
I know what you're getting at. I could use a different standard and call each and every one of them conservatives as well.

But I'll stand by what I wrote. Lincoln and FDR were true liberals in office. Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama- all of them did some very liberal things, but I wouldn't call any of them liberal- centrist is a better definition for most of them. In any event, my main point is that the type of liberal that NC Commish wants (along the lines of Elizabeth Warren) is never going to be elected President, IMO.
Ok, never mind. If you really believe this then all we are going to do is go round and round and at some point you will losen up and admit you could be wrong like always happens and we will have wasted about 10% of the board bandwidth getting there.

Let's do this - I am actually more and more convinced that the polity is closer to going the way NC wants then the way you are saying we would. I can see more and more liberal/progressive tendencies and desires that are drowning out other things. I think you can make a strong argument that a more liberal President is possible sooner than a true conservative.
:grad:

 

cstu

Footballguy
3. Woodrow Wilson was a racist southern Democrat

Woodrow Wilson was an arsehat, I have no problem saying that. But southern Democrat? In 1913? Help me out here exactly what you mean because he was president of Princeton and led a progressive movement that led to alot of things that we wouldn't exactly call conservative
Here's what Wilson had to say after screening 'Birth of a Nation' (which used his own quotes in the subtitles):

While the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People publicly denounced the movie’s blatant appeals to racial prejudice, the president organized a private screening of his friend’s film in the White House for the members of his cabinet and their families. “It is like writing history with lightning,” Wilson observed, “and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.”

.

Link
 

Yankee23Fan

Fair Tax!
2. Abraham Lincoln was a liberal

Now, I could ifight anyone when it comes to anything having to do with Abraham Lincoln. Hell, I'm fairly confident I could go toe to toe with any historian about his as well, including McCullough and Donald, and with that I say this - WTmF are you talking about?
Liberals want to use the government to make changes to American society. He's the definition of a liberal.
Your definition sucks and is so wrong that its not worth continuing....

 

timschochet

Footballguy
Yankee I think it would be fun to have a debate about how we define liberal and which Presidents fit that definition. I'm pressed for time this morning but if you're willing to wait a few hours I can respond to your rebuttal at length.

 

-fish-

Footballguy
this is why tim should be ignored by everyone.

the topic is legitimate. hillary's old and in ill health. she's the obvious frontrunner, but who are 2 and 3?

Instead, tim derails the conversation with asinine, unsupported opinions--probably cribbed from elsewhere--and off we go with a thread arguing about stupid, irrelevant labels. eventually tm will say make some conciliatory statement and claim he was trying to generate discussion.

you all complain that political threads are a waste of time--this is the reason. lots of bright people have just given up on discussion because there just isn't any point around here anymore. the timfog is too thick.

:wall:

 

TobiasFunke

Footballguy
this is why tim should be ignored by everyone.

the topic is legitimate. hillary's old and in ill health. she's the obvious frontrunner, but who are 2 and 3?

Instead, tim derails the conversation with asinine, unsupported opinions--probably cribbed from elsewhere--and off we go with a thread arguing about stupid, irrelevant labels. eventually tm will say make some conciliatory statement and claim he was trying to generate discussion.

you all complain that political threads are a waste of time--this is the reason. lots of bright people have just given up on discussion because there just isn't any point around here anymore. the timfog is too thick.

:wall:
This is definitely not the thread for this post. Tim's post here was a totally reasonable and on-topic response. It was other posters who felt the need to engage him on the definition of "liberal" and historical debate.

Personally, I don't have a problem with those posters engaging him on those questions either, I don't mind when conversations spin in interesting directions not related to the initial topic. But even if you do have a problem with that, Tim's not the guy to blame in this case.

 

culdeus

Have good
Yankee I think it would be fun to have a debate about how we define liberal and which Presidents fit that definition. I'm pressed for time this morning but if you're willing to wait a few hours I can respond to your rebuttal at length.
I CANT WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Yankee23Fan

Fair Tax!
There's probably only a handful of names that could possibly run on the Dem side.

Hillary is the obvious one but if I bet money right now, I dont' think she runs. The age thing is really an issue I think. But I could be wrong. She has 6 months more to figure it out.

Joe Biden is an option just because he is Vice President. Joe Biden will never be President through an election.

Andrew Cuomo is my favorite right now sans Hillary. And if the left thinks Christie is going to get the nod , then Cuomo is a very good opponent for him

Martin O'Malley is probably going to give it a go. As will Deval Patrick. Governor's are always better than Senators. I'm not sure either have what it takes.

Elizabeth Warren is getting throw around but she isn't a Kennedy and her only national stage stuff has been insulated. The dark horse could be Antonio Villlaraigosa but he has been hit hard by a ton of scandals and marriage issues.

I think that is the field that is "known" right now. I'm sure someone think Corey Booker could be a candidate but that person would be a ****ing moron.

So, right now, I'd say it's something like:

1. Clinton if she runs

2. Cuomo

3. O'Malley / Patrick

Dark Horse - Villaraigosa

Super super super dark horse - and I mean super super super super dark, like James Polk looks like the lock going into the convention compared to this person - Michael Bloomberg He was never a republican anyway and he has the ego and money to try to do it. If the party bosses let him back. IT would make an interesting story - something like, yeah I was a republican, but they are crazy now and this is the party of the people and I want to help the people, yada yada don't drink large soda, yada yada.

 

The_Man

Footballguy
O'Malley won't run against Hillary. Not his style to go when it's "not his turn," just like when he didn't run for the Governor nomination when he was Mayor of Baltimore vs. the incumbent Lt. Governor. Her campaign was so disastrously incompetent that she achieved the virtually impossible, losing the Maryland governorship to a Republican, who O'Malley defeated after one term.

As a longtime Maryland liberal, let me say that O'Malley really sucks. There are many things I despise about him, but the worst is his overly portentous, insipid oratory. This was his classic at the 2004 national convention: "America the beautiful, whose alabaster cities gleam undimmed by human tears; oh, my friends, to govern is to choose."

 

timschochet

Footballguy
this is why tim should be ignored by everyone.

the topic is legitimate. hillary's old and in ill health. she's the obvious frontrunner, but who are 2 and 3?

Instead, tim derails the conversation with asinine, unsupported opinions--probably cribbed from elsewhere--and off we go with a thread arguing about stupid, irrelevant labels. eventually tm will say make some conciliatory statement and claim he was trying to generate discussion.

you all complain that political threads are a waste of time--this is the reason. lots of bright people have just given up on discussion because there just isn't any point around here anymore. the timfog is too thick.

:wall:
So I am to blame for "bright people" giving up on discussion? I create my very own fog? I never realized how powerful I was.
 

TobiasFunke

Footballguy
O'Malley won't run against Hillary. Not his style to go when it's "not his turn," just like when he didn't run for the Governor nomination when he was Mayor of Baltimore vs. the incumbent Lt. Governor. Her campaign was so disastrously incompetent that she achieved the virtually impossible, losing the Maryland governorship to a Republican, who O'Malley defeated after one term.

As a longtime Maryland liberal, let me say that O'Malley really sucks. There are many things I despise about him, but the worst is his overly portentous, insipid oratory. This was his classic at the 2004 national convention: "America the beautiful, whose alabaster cities gleam undimmed by human tears; oh, my friends, to govern is to choose."
I also wonder if his reputation nationally takes a hit due to the failures and indiscretions of Tommy Carcetti.

 

Yankee23Fan

Fair Tax!
this is why tim should be ignored by everyone.

the topic is legitimate. hillary's old and in ill health. she's the obvious frontrunner, but who are 2 and 3?

Instead, tim derails the conversation with asinine, unsupported opinions--probably cribbed from elsewhere--and off we go with a thread arguing about stupid, irrelevant labels. eventually tm will say make some conciliatory statement and claim he was trying to generate discussion.

you all complain that political threads are a waste of time--this is the reason. lots of bright people have just given up on discussion because there just isn't any point around here anymore. the timfog is too thick.

:wall:
So I am to blame for "bright people" giving up on discussion? I create my very own fog? I never realized how powerful I was.
It's the avatar. Every time I see it I'm ready for a gong to go off.

 

Yankee23Fan

Fair Tax!
O'Malley won't run against Hillary. Not his style to go when it's "not his turn," just like when he didn't run for the Governor nomination when he was Mayor of Baltimore vs. the incumbent Lt. Governor. Her campaign was so disastrously incompetent that she achieved the virtually impossible, losing the Maryland governorship to a Republican, who O'Malley defeated after one term.

As a longtime Maryland liberal, let me say that O'Malley really sucks. There are many things I despise about him, but the worst is his overly portentous, insipid oratory. This was his classic at the 2004 national convention: "America the beautiful, whose alabaster cities gleam undimmed by human tears; oh, my friends, to govern is to choose."
That's just it though - is Hillary really the one that is sitting in the catbird seat? I get the "turn" thing. That's why my side got stuck with Dole and a few others. But I don't know if the same dynamic applies.

Although, let's be abundantly fair and obvious - when it comes to politics - the actual ground level war of attrition politics that is what makes American politics such a fascinating and dangerous game - there is no duo better at it than Bill and Hillary Clinton. For all the faults I had with his administration, I never once doubted or debated that he is close to the greatest "politician" we have ever had in that office. He is right there with Reagan in that kind of debate. And Hillary being along side him the entire time and then taking the power upon herself afterwards is no slouch either - and for whatever reason you want to give they have an absolteuly loyal and unyielding internal group of handlers and supporters that will do anything for them.

So the hell really knows.

 

Todd Andrews

Footballguy
O'Malley won't run against Hillary. Not his style to go when it's "not his turn," just like when he didn't run for the Governor nomination when he was Mayor of Baltimore vs. the incumbent Lt. Governor. Her campaign was so disastrously incompetent that she achieved the virtually impossible, losing the Maryland governorship to a Republican, who O'Malley defeated after one term.

As a longtime Maryland liberal, let me say that O'Malley really sucks. There are many things I despise about him, but the worst is his overly portentous, insipid oratory. This was his classic at the 2004 national convention: "America the beautiful, whose alabaster cities gleam undimmed by human tears; oh, my friends, to govern is to choose."
I also wonder if his reputation nationally takes a hit due to the failures and indiscretions of Tommy Carcetti.
O Malley definitely has some work to do, and has some blemishes and issues, but he is a surprisingly good politician (young Irish Catholic DC suburbs kid winning as mayor in Bawlmer aint easy) and a pretty good "governor" in the sense that he is pretty competent at the job of running government. But The Man is right, the fake Clinton talking style has to be toned down. It worked on smaller stages but eventually comes across as pretty ridiculous.

 
O'Malley won't run against Hillary. Not his style to go when it's "not his turn," just like when he didn't run for the Governor nomination when he was Mayor of Baltimore vs. the incumbent Lt. Governor. Her campaign was so disastrously incompetent that she achieved the virtually impossible, losing the Maryland governorship to a Republican, who O'Malley defeated after one term.

As a longtime Maryland liberal, let me say that O'Malley really sucks. There are many things I despise about him, but the worst is his overly portentous, insipid oratory. This was his classic at the 2004 national convention: "America the beautiful, whose alabaster cities gleam undimmed by human tears; oh, my friends, to govern is to choose."
O'Malley is term-limited though, so he'll be out of office in a year. Seems like he'll go for it even if Hillary runs. Unless his plan is to see if Barbara Mikulski will retire so he can try for the Senate in 2016.

 
If Hillary runs only someone from the left of her will try to run against her. It won't be Warren. She has made that pretty clear. Hillary is just another moderate republican in Democratic clothing. So all the corporate Dems will be thrilled with her. Only those of us who are really liberals will be looking for someone to move her to the left. There are a couple of governors I'd like to see run but the perception of Clinton's inevitability is going to cow a bunch of people. And it really pisses me off.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Warren has been adamant about her lack of interest in the race and reiterated that lack of interest in an interview with the New York Times’ Jonathan Martin last month. But, things change in politics. Then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was similarly adamant about his lack of interest in running for president in 2008 — and we know how that turned out. (Worth noting: In the same interview in which she denied interest, Warren told Martin that “this country should not be run for the biggest corporations and largest financial institutions,” which wouldn’t be a bad message to carry forward in a 2016 Democratic primary fight. We’re not saying, we’re just saying….)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Yankee23Fan

Fair Tax!
Well, if that Wealth Inequality video that is making the rounds all over the place gains any traction at all with the electorate, maybe Warren will have something to work from.

 

Mr. Know-It-All

Footballguy
With Obama breaking down the glass ceiling for race being a barrier to the White House I was hoping that the Dems would have a woman run for president to break down the glass ceiling for gender.

 

timschochet

Footballguy
O'Mallry is someone I've only heard of a few times. At this point in 2005, Barack Obama was already a star figure because of his famous convention speech and his best selling book. I don't see anyone like that among the Dems this time around. Unless Hillary shocks and decides not to run she's a lock IMO.

I do think Cory Booker is a future star and I would not be surprised to see him on or leading the ticket at some point in the future.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top