John Kasich anyone? Just won re-election to Governor of Ohio by a 2-1 margin...a state that is a critical battleground state. Has balanced the budget in Ohio, little bad press yet and is fairly well known compared to Jindal or Walker.
I think a Cruz / Clinton debate would be incredibly boring and predictable. Both would be looking to score points with their base by going to tired culture war talking points and avoiding policy discussions or any difficult answers to serious questions. It would be a lot of snarky soundbites, theater for the low information voter, and about as much of a political debate as pro wrestling is an athletic competition. I see Warren like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul -- not much chance winning a primary, much less being elected, but certainly forcing the conversation away from the tired bull****.
I'd like to see him debate anyone that would give him a proper debate. Our culture for debate in this country pretty much consists of either two people facing an audience and taking turns pitching themselves or screaming over each other on Sunday talk shows. Put him on Question Time. That would be good television.
All you will ever get from Cruz is schtick; scripted, calculated, hot button Ebola ISIS Terrorist on our borders schtick, just like all the $4 Billion dollars in campaign commercials from the mid-terms. He is a political actor, playing a caricature. But if anybody actually debated point by point policy issues the US audience would flip the channel. one possible "Obama-like star on the horizon: Gillibrand 2020!
Hi - just checking in to see where we are on this. Eagerly awaiting this plethora of predictive pathos you promised with such panache
Same was said of Reagan and Clinton. And I'd agree: I'm also not a fan of either of them. Had I been a voter in either of the primaries that got them into their respective general elections, I would have gone with Bush the Elder in 1980 and Brown or Tsongas in 1992. Cruz has a long way to go to win over his own party. If he were a governor instead of a senator, I think he'd be less controversial within the GOP and more likely to get there, but as it is, he's a bit of a pariah. For a party that demands a lot of ideological discipline, I don't think the party's brahmins would let him advance through a primary. Most people don't even bother to watch it. There certainly is a precedent of candidates trying to force policy debate. Adlai Stevenson and Barry Goldwater come to mind. I found the last presidential debates unwatchable, but probably the worst in recent memory were the 2000 ones. When I was an undergrad I was addicted to C-Span and I found that as cynical as I was about politics, there were always some unexpected responsible actors (well in the Senate at least) that I respected for doing their jobs, even if I didn't always agree with their politics. And it's a shame, because political careers in the Information Age are largely rewarded for partisan sound bites, photogenic smiles and hairstyles rather than sound policy. Possibly...but what is it that makes her such a desirable candidate for you?
I have, which is the reason that I said that these two would have a better chance than the others you mentioned. I would argue that she "went to bat" for people who were either losing or in competitive races, thus the results are easily explained. If you'd like to provide the data, I'll be happy to look into it to see if there was any demonstrable change in the races before and after Hilary "went to bat" for them. Either way, judging Hilary's popularity with independents based on how candidates she endorsed performed seems like a poor proxy. If I proposed that as an instrumental variable, I'd be laughed out of the room. No, I specifically said that they don't have a chance because they are Tea Party ideologues, it has absolutely nothing to do with how I personally feel about them. http://www.gallup.com/poll/166217/tea-party-favorability-falls-lowest-yet.aspx The Tea Party is seen unfavorably by 48% of independents versus 22% who view them favorably and 24% who expressed no opinion. This would seem to indicate that politicians who have aligned themselves with the Tea Party will perform poorly on the national stage in a general election, which is one of the reasons it is unlikely that one of them will get the nomination.
Q score - looks, brains, eloquence, resume' Centrist - seen as a Progressive but has bonafides with conservatives Coattails - Hillary machine in NY Just guessing, looking for a Obama like shooting star
She is a pretty airhead. I watched her on tv once and she sounded like a robot that didn't really know what she was talking about. She makes Barbara boxer sound like a rocket scientist. Not bad looking though........
They should repeal their government pensions after they repeal obama care. Better yet, have the Senate do a re-vote on the matter :grin:
I love me som good ol' Rudan. She was an associate/partner at Davis Polk/Boies Schiller, and clerked on the 2d Circuit - places where you couldn't pass a background check to mop up the urinal drip stains from. I'm gonna go ahead and say she's smarter than you.
Walker's state went for Obama twice. He also ran against some relatively weak opponents and benefited from many who were sick of the recalls.
