June 30, 2013

The Specularazzi Go Hyper-Forward To 2016

We remain only in the first year of the second term of Barack Obama’s presidency, and the media specularazzi are already churning in predictions and conclusions. It seems, in recent cycles, it always to go this way with breathless prognostications, meaningless polls, and reports of instant political “nosedives”of frontrunners and other presidential hopefuls.

On the Democratic side, the race has been declared “over” by virtually all the specularazzi, i.e., that Hillary Clinton already has the nomination in her handbag, and thus no more need be said. The fact that the identical conclusion was reached by consensus in 2006, and did not come to pass, seems to be of no import to the specularazzi. Of course, Mrs. Clinton has “total” name recognition, and it has been declared that it’s “her turn”by her old supporters. She will, of course, be nearly 70 years old in 2016, her record as secretary of state now judged to be “controversial” and uneven at best. She is a poor public speaker, and has no distinction as an administrator. Nevertheless, she is “inevitable.” Fast-forwarding is so much fun, is it not?

By the way, I wonder if Andrew Cuomo, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Cory Booker, Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Manchin, Ron Wyden and other talented younger Democrats are so willing to throw in the towel this far in advance. Perhaps. Perhaps not.

On the Republican side, there is more debate. Early favorite Senator Marco Rubio has gambled big-time on immigration reform legislation that is very unpopular with many in the GOP grass roots. Likewise, high profile New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has been declared to have “crossed the line” with his handling of a U.S. senate vacancy and his “moderate” views. The new darling on the right is first-term Texas Senator Ted Cruz, an outspoken and smart conservative who seems to be filling a temporary political void. Concurrent with the seeming decline of Mr. Rubio, there has been a revival of the only man in recent U.S. history who has been disqualified for the presidency solely because of his surname, i.e., former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, a man with genuine accomplishments, proven intelligence and, oh yes, all kinds of Hispanic credentials.

Of course, the Republicans also have a stable of old war horses, including Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, et al, but unlike 2008 and 2012, there are none who might legitimately claim that it’s ”their turn.”

As I see it, Governor Christie, Senator Cruz and former Governor Bush, albeit with differing points of view, are rather talented fellows, and should make the 2016 contest (when we finally get to it) rather interesting.

In 2005, by the way, hardly anyone had heard of the person who swept to election as president only three years later.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Copyright (c) 2013 by Barry Casselman.   All rights reserved.

Trackback URL for this post:
http://race42016.com/2013/06/30/the-specularazzi-go-hyper-forward-to-2016/trackback/

51 Responses to “The Specularazzi Go Hyper-Forward To 2016”

  1. Geanakos Says:

    More Rand Paul blacklisting here on race42016 I see.. I hope you all can fall behind him after we take the nomination.

  2. TennJoe Says:

    Got to put Rand Paul into the mix. Very articulate and intelligent and would match up well against the afore mentioned pols.

  3. Joe Says:

    Rand Paul is a vile anti-Semite, just like his father. He wants to cut all US aid to Israel, our greatest ally, and leave them to fend off the radical Muslims on their own.

  4. DL210 Says:

    3- That alone makes him anti-semitic? I don’t like Rand Paul either, but him wanting to cut aid to Israel doesn’t seem to warrant anti-semitism.

  5. packeryman Says:

    Rand Paul will take his place in GOP history along with, Cruz, Ryan, Rubio, Bachmann. Walker, O’Donnell, and any other far right candidate that has no chance of winning a national election. The only choice is Christie, only candidate with a chance of beating Hillary, but he will draw a larger vote than GOP candidate if he runs third party and possibility beat Hillary.The act has to be cleaned up, America with its diversity will not elect a Republican in a national election. The GOP has let the extreme Republican controlled states overide the majority through extreme gerrymandering. This may continue for a short while, but when the Dem’s take the election again in 2016 , have 3 more yrs of Obama and 8 yrs of Dem’s, what happens to the supreme court and all lower court appointments? The GOP has refused to fill the courts for now, but how long can this B.S. go on?, not long. This sorry game being played by the GOP for long, it will end, and not for the good of the Party.

  6. DL210 Says:

    5- I don’t quite understand what you mean. In 2008 and 2012, the Republican party did not nominate an extremely conservative, right-wing candidate. John McCain and Mitt Romney are both moderates and everyone knows that. Neither of these men were religious nut jobs that “America with its diversity” would really object to. It’s not as if Rick Santorum won or anything. That being said, the past two moderates that have been nominated by the party have lost. So what evidence do we have that a conservative would have “no chance of winning a national election”?

  7. MarqueG Says:

    6. Don’t mind him. He just does cheap versions of Rachael Maddow impersonations in drag. The content is non-existent, arguments superficial, categories straw-mannish. He’s not capable of explaining policies, just left-wing mouth-breathing talking points. Think of him as a Pez dispenser for liberal idiocy.

  8. packeryman Says:

    I thought Romney had the best qualifications of any GOP candidate in many years, clean(no sign of corruption or scandals), a minister of his faith, good family man and appeared by his actions in life to have been a very honest person. No other candidate could come close to touching him on these aspects. To me the rest were political trash except for Jon Huntsman. This is where the SOME in the GOP haven’t got the message, it was not the messenger, his delivery of the message, but the message.He was electable nationally had he stayed in the middle of the political spectrum. He was forced by the far right of the party to move in that direction to get the nomination. Then he could not get back to where he had to be to win the national election. The Hard right refuses to acknowledge this because they think they are always right.Remember they have become a cult and converse very little outside it, example:they thought they had the election won, wrong they thought the economy gave them an automatic win, wrong they thought by limiting hours polls were open days open , closing Sunday polls they could limit Black vote, wrong. Limiting women’s, gay’s labor, rights by highly gerrymandered GOP controlled states only bring more of these people to the polls. Those of the far right controlling the GOP have become complete fools. Immigration will prove to be another downfall with the Latino vote. Latino’s understand the GOP is afraid of their vote. In all honesty how could any Latino vote GOP? When is this party going to wake up? Not until the radicals are thrown out as did the Dem’s with the bible thumpers.

  9. packeryman Says:

    #7, You can talk your talk, but times are changing and your antiquated, reactionary political views will become a thing of the past as time moves on. The court has moved on healthcare and gay marriage because of destiny, Roberts and Kennedy will be on the right side of history. Kennedy knows gay rights are inevitable, Roberts knows we have to come to a single payer system(he had to lay the groundwork).

  10. DL210 Says:

    8- Romney certainly was the most qualified candidate by far. And your point on him probably winning had he not been forced to be more conservative may have some truth to it. He’s a very honest man, but he wasn’t showing his true colors when he ran for the nomination in 2012. He’s much more moderate than he led on to be, but I feel like his personality and experience were exactly what this country needed exactly at that time. He would have been an amazing president.

  11. packeryman Says:

    He was the best man for the job, it makes no difference if his real position was more moderate(this was a good thing, this idea being perpetuated by the right,more conservative is B.S.) yet by pulling him to the right, the American people could not buy into the GOP rhetoric. If this happens in 2016, another great GOP loss. But when you are dealing with cult control of the party, you have lost everything,winning or losing is not a consideration of this type of thought. I continue to say let prove this issue once and for all, run two right wing nuts, it does not matter who. I will list most in the party, Rand, Cruz, Ryan, Scott, Rubio, Bachmann, O’Donnell, Perry, etc. Pick any two and the American people will reject them big time, what a GOP defeat.You guys have to do it to experience it as did those before you in 1964 with Goldwater.

  12. HYUFD Says:

    How can you exclude Rand Paul when he has been leading polls in Iowa and NH recently and Montana. I see Sarah Palin has threatened to quit the GOP to start a new Freedom Party http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2351750/Is-Sarah-Palin-leave-Republican-Party-Tea-Party-celebrity-hints-independent-start-new-Freedom-Party.html

    Indeed, that is why I am increasingly convinced Rand Paul will end up GOP nominee, a Christie candidacy or a Jeb Bush candidacy will leave a Freedom Party candidate as almost inevitable, as indeed may a Rubio nomination because of his relatively liberal views on immigration. Paul on the other hand is a Tea Party icon and fiercely anti immigration reform. However either way it would seem Hillary will be laughing all the way to the White House!!

  13. HYUFD Says:

    After Obama’s speech at the 2004 Dem convention it is also a bit of a stretch to say no-one had heard of him in 2005!

  14. Heath Says:

    John Thune will be our nominee.

    You heard it here first.

  15. Massachusetts Conservative Says:

    14

    And I heard it here last.

  16. MarqueG Says:

    Bla… bla… bla… extreme gerrymandering… bla… bla… belch

    So the 2006 Dem takeover of the House was the result of “moderate gerrymandering” that applied first in 2002. The “extreme gerrymandering” came in 2012, two years after GOPs reclaimed the House.

    Gerrymandering is gerrymandering. There’s no “extreme” subcategory involved, other than the one that produces results that the term’s author doesn’t like.

  17. MarqueG Says:

    15. LOL.

  18. Chip Says:

    “In 2005, by the way, hardly anyone had heard of the person who swept to election as president only three years later.”

    Um, he gave the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention and was the only African American in the Senate.

    Also, no Rand Paul?

  19. HowDumbIsTheGOP Says:

    Casselman, you’re an idiot. So are you, Joe. You are more my enemies than the most liberal Democrat, and you keep the GOP fractured while they post win after win.

  20. no newt Says:

    14/15..met thune in NH during the election. not much going on upstairs…in person the epitome of swarmy politician..

  21. no newt Says:

    used car salesman fits thune to a t

  22. DL210 Says:

    I will vote for my favorite candidate during the primaries in 2016, but no matter what, I will support any Republican that is nominated besides Rand Paul. It doesn’t matter how conservative the candidate is. Let’s just nominate one that can actually win. Wouldn’t a moderate Republican president be better than a liberal Democrat president? If somehow Chris Christie wins the primary and Sarah Palin goes and creates a Freedom Party and they run their own candidate, that’s the quickest way to a Democratic victory. The Democrats would love to see that. It would be just like 1912: William Howard Taft was president at the time, Theodore Roosevelt did not approve of the job he was doing so he ran against him in the primaries, Roosevelt lost and Taft won, Roosevelt created his own party, and then BOTH Republicans lost easily to Democratic Woodrow Wilson because they split the votes.

  23. DL210 Says:

    I just randomly found a video of the 1952 Republican nominating process and it told a story similar to what we face today. The two front-runners were Senator Robert Taft and General Dwight Eisenhower. Taft appealed to the Old Guard, conservative wing of the party that believed they knew the true meaning of Republicanism (free enterprise, non-interventionism, and anti-big labor). Meanwhile, Eisenhower stood for a middle of the road approach that could attract not only Republicans, but also Democrats and Independents. We all know how that story ends. Ike is nominated and he wins in a landslide against Adlai Stevenson, with 442 electoral votes to Stevenson’s 89. It’s funny how history seems to have re-occurring themes.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUc_WJUR1j4

  24. Joe Says:

    “[Clinton] will, of course, be nearly 70 years old in 2016.”

    So was Reagan in 1980. What’s your point?

  25. Massachusetts Conservative Says:

    24

    Rove is out with his new strategy for 2016: Call for a change in leadership (and imply she is too old). He says it will be compelling. I say that is a losing strategy right out of the gate. No one is going to give a damn how old Hillary is. The more people imply she is too old, the more sympathy she will get, and the more it will make her seem steady and experienced. One of the bigger factors that will hurt Hillary is the people who think somehow that a woman is not capable of being president. But how is that sentiment going to actually hurt her if people keep saying how she’s so old and experienced?

    I say, cut past all the crap, and make her look like the lying, conniving two faced power monger she is. Put up a nominee who contrasts with Obama and Hillary both; that is, a no-BS, straightforward, but likeable person. Not sure who this is or whether this person is available in 2016.

  26. EW Says:

    23 – So you want someone who can attract Democrats and Independents and yet you won’t support Rand Paul? You think Dems and Indies will support GOP candidates who have no regrets with the Iraq War, want to stay in Afghanistan forever, want to get involved in Syria, etc.? You think Dems and Indies will support GOP candidates who praise Big Brother surveillance? You think Dems and Indies will support GOP candidates who think we are winning the war on drugs and we just need to throw more money at the problem?

  27. Joe Says:

    25.

    No-one should ever listen to anything Karl Rove has to say. But I agree, no-one will care that she is 69, especially given the Republican proclivity for nominated old men.

    26.

    They’d vote for Ike in a heartbeat over Santorum, Palin, Huckabee, Perry or Ted Cruz.

  28. Chip Says:

    “No one is going to give a damn how old Hillary is. The more people imply she is too old, the more sympathy she will get, and the more it will make her seem steady and experienced.”

    That wasn’t the case with John McCain in 2008, or George H.W. Bush in 1992 for that matter. Reagan got away with it because even though he was 69 he looked like he was in his 50’s.

  29. Enrique Says:

    Mass Con,

    I agree.

    You attack her character and shrillness. Not her age.

  30. Enrique Says:

    You don’t have to say. A damn word about her age. Her face is an old catcher’s mitt. It speaks for itself.

  31. Enrique Says:

    I’m all-in for Christie.

    John Bush is not the answer. He’s arrogant and is not prepared for interviews.

    Cruz is way too smarmy. Reminds you of the high school know-it-all that everyone hated.

    It’s Christie. Perfect personality to face Hillary.

  32. Chip Says:

    30: That’s the thing. People will have forgotten about Benghazi by 2016. Hillary’s biggest liability will be her age, even though people won’t come right out and say she’s too old, they’ll know it. It’s no different than the 69-year old George Bush Sr. running against the 43-year old Bill Clinton, or the 73-year old John McCain running against 47-year old Barack Obama. Like I said, It wasn’t a problem with Reagan because he looked 20 years younger than he was. That’s not the case with Hillary.

  33. Massachusetts Conservative Says:

    31

    Christie is really the no-brainer for 2016 but I really, really do not want to vote for him. I’ll probably protest vote for Rand Paul, who I actually like, in the primaries and have to settle for Christie in the general.

  34. Massachusetts Conservative Says:

    32

    Age is really not a factor in presidential politics except to the extent it enhances/detracts from a message. Obama’s age gap with McCain helped because he was the new, fresh, black kid on the block who was going to rescue us from the old way of nominating old white guys. I don’t see Hillary’s age really being a factor.

  35. Jonathan Says:

    When it comes to Hillary, the past v. future argument isn’t going to work. People now look back with fondness on the Clinton years. Conventional wisdom has it as a peaceful, prosperous time with the occasional sex scandal and the odd impeachment thing. After all the tumult and upheaval of the Bush 43 and Obama years, returning to what people felt as the “peace and quiet” of the Clinton years will have appeal to voters.

    I agree with Mass Con, we need to go after Hillary for her blatant opportunism, her general unprincipled nature, and her relatively brittle personality. It won’t be easy but it can be done.

  36. Enrique Says:

    I am all for running a subliminal campaign about Hillary’s age.

    But saying it explicitly will generate sympathy. And she’ll just use Reagan’s famous debate line about age and experience.

    Hillary’s personality is terrible. That’s why her negatives are so high. Hillary has one of the worst political personalities possible. The only reason she breaks through with that terrible personality is because of her husband. If Bill wasn’t her husband, she would have no greater national appeal than, say, Lisa Murkowski.

  37. geanakc Says:

    31. No Christie. Why does the GOP want to nominate a Dem in red clothing anyway.

  38. Enrique Says:

    37

    All of Christie’s positions are conservative.

    I don’t get too upset at procedural stuff (except I was pissed at what he did to Romney days before the election). Frankly, I think Christie’s strategy is this: procedurally craft a bipartisan image, while substantively stay conservative on everything. It’s brilliant.

    Substantively, you cannot challenge Christie’s conservative credentials. On issues of economics, taxes, public sector unions, pro-life, against gay marriage, against Obamacare, almost everything, Christie is conservative.

    Christie’s running mate must have foreign policy experience. Condaleeza Rice makes sense.

    Christie/Condi 2016.

  39. Mr. Owl Says:

    37. He’s against gay marriage, against abortion, wants to cut government spending, wants to grow the private industry, isn’t afraid of unions, and wants to reform education in an intelligent way. he’s hardly a democrat. If you are going to cite his short embrace of the president whilst his state was just destroyed by the storm, I may remind you that he was the first governor to side with Romney and he spent months trashing Obama and gathering millions from donors to help the GOP; Sometimes you need to put aside politics and help the people that are suffering.

  40. MarqueG Says:

    I find it encouraging to see so many confidently predicting Hillary winning the presidency in a lazy walk. Two years ago, all the confidence around here was that Bam couldn’t win reelection.

    Depending on how domestic and world affairs shape up over the next three years, there will be plenty of issues to discuss and debate, each of which will play to the strengths and weaknesses of the political parties and their leaders. Already today, the prog/lib base of the Donk party has lost its emotional connection to the party. Frustrations mount. Yet the more Bam tries to force through that leftist agenda, the more he and his party disappoint and frustrate the apolitical center of the country, who overwhelmingly worry about jobs, the economy, taxes, debt, and regulations.

    What sort of political agenda are Hill and the Donks going to run on in 2016? Amnesty? Equal pay? Saving the planet from evil “carbon pollution”? Gun control safety? It won’t be some push for gayer marriages or freer abortions. Those things have been accomplished and now risk creating a partial backlash.

    Whoever the Repubs nominate will need to go on offense, because it’s the Donks who at least have to defend what they’ve been doing. I’d want our side to challenge the spirit of American decline. Of slower growth, fewer jobs, less pay, and higher costs of living and taxes. A lot should be made of how the well-connected are making out like bandits thanks to their political chumminess with the White House and the Dem party. The cronies need to be named and shamed by our side for a change.

    And Hillary Clinton, thanks to her family’s deep ties to the liberal and international super-wealthy, promises to be even more cronyist than even Bam.

  41. Mr. Owl Says:

    40. I think she can lazy walk the primary. people aren’t going to be tricked into believing the false promises of a young candidate spouting the merits of “Hope” a second time and Obama only won the primary by a series of unlikely events and still won with less votes than Hillary.

    she has a definite advantage against the GOP in that so many states that should be GOP safe are suddenly battleground states and the GOP won’t have the money to match the democrats and defend those states. there are also some candidates that would end up in Democrats landslides like Rubio v Hillary. The GOP can win but they need a candidate that starts off well against Hillary, so as to conserve resources, and that has both the credentials and the likability. There are few candidates that have this and Christie is the most likely to run and is also a very good match.

    If the GOP is smart, she might lose, but otherwise it is unlikely to be anything but a slaughter.

  42. FloridaSunshine Says:

    Repubs in ’16 need someone who has strong leadership skills, especially with International/Foreign Relations experience. None of the names listed have any Int’l relations experience. And if Rubio or Jeb can’t beat Hillary in Florida, please tell me how the Repubs get to 270 EVs, even if the race gets closer nationally? I still say Giuliani could be a wildcard and only chance for a GOP Victory.

  43. Mr. Owl Says:

    42. Why do the candidates need international experience? people are tired of international issues and want to turn inward so a governor is much more appealing than a foreign diplomat. and you are under the impression that no candidate can beat Hillary in Florida; Florida can be won, its just not an easy task.

  44. Guy from Ohio Says:

    Christie’s plan: run towards the center to win his reelection by a huge margin, then begin a gentle return to the right. That way in the primaries, he can argue that he is an honest conservative, who is able to win big even in the blue states.

  45. jersey guy Says:

    All speculation of 2016 is pointless at this early juncture. Polls won’t mean a damn thing at least til August 2015

  46. Mr. Owl Says:

    45. Don’t be that guy. we’re here having fun discussing scenarios that MIGHT happen, knowing full well that a lot could change in the time between now and 2016. “All speculation is pointless at this early juncture” and comments like that are as pointless as our speculation. If no one speculated about 2016 then no one would comment at all and the website would be hardly worth coming to. i only come to hear the opinions of others.

  47. C Says:

    The good news for Paula Deen is that she should have an easier time re-branding than the Republican Party.

    And Sarah Palin, PLEASE go third party and make all your fanboys happy in ’16! Thanks.

  48. Enrique Says:

    Sarah Palin is right on most issues of substance.

    Unfortunately she is utterly clueless about what 50+1% is and how to get there.

  49. C Says:

    Chuck Schumer now predicts the House will pass immigration reform solely to embarrass Ted Cruz.

    I hate Chuck.

  50. MarqueG Says:

    45., 46. Most of us just come here for the political group therapy and the mutual exchange of mansplaining. Next we’ll probably get into some gay banter, now that it’s socially approved.

  51. ChrisD Says:

    42. Giuliani is 69 now. He’ll turn 72 in 2016.

Join The Community


Sponsored Ad

Meta

Recent Posts

Sponsored Ad

Categories

Archives

Search

Blogroll

Site Syndication

Main