A contested Democratic nomination between heavy-weights would have been destructive. Bernie brought in newer voters and he was quite respectful of Ms. Clinton.
I don't necessarily think he would be a great president, and I think he's noticing the damage to "your brand" that running can have, but there is no doubt in my mind that Mark Cuban is seriously dipping his toe in the water by his involvement in this election. He clearly inserted himself in the conversation (or was urged to do so from others around him) when Trump became a serious candidate in the primaries because lets face it... He's essentially a smart, and successful version of Donald Trump himself for the millennial generation. So long story short, I think we will be hearing his name brought up more and more in the coming years, and this type of public figure will garner more attention as presidential candidates. Tap into the narrative that Trump had that worked with the right/Trump base - I'm successful outside of politics, and am an outsider but without everything else that makes Trump the worst candidate in the history of American politics.
I think a President will always come as a highly degreed, experienced public servant. Government is very different than business, candor and directness are not virtues for the job.
His son died and he just didn't want to at the time. By the time he wanted to consider, it was already too late.
I agree, but I think Trump (and to a lesser extent Palin) tapped into something that a good portion of American's want to dip their toe in the water and see how it works. The fact is, the Republican's should have seen this coming with the start of the Tea Party thing, and said to themselves that it cannot be Trump so lets see if we can get a smarter version of Trump to run under our platform who has less baggage. What's yet to be seen is if they go this route next time, or if they go back to the traditional highly degreed/skilled debater career politician in 2020 who just recites their party lines aka Pence or Paul Ryan. I think the Dem's should plan to stay with the public servant/highly educated route, but pick candidates with less baggage than Hillary. I'm sure they will look at younger candidates with this background like Mike Johnston or Tulsi Gabbard to name a few. We will see if we start hearing those names come up here in the next year or two.
Trump and Palin are running jokes, they are proven losers in the political arena. They got spots in the GOP because credible people cannot run on a platform of religious and racial intolerance, tax cuts for everything, ending vital government services and programs, and being existentially afraid while having the world's strongest military. They let Bill Clinton take over the center and they have nothing left to run on. Trump and Palin played to the rubes, thinking people won't be fooled again.
Those that would likely make great presidents have no desire to run for President. Everyone has skeletons and they'll tear even the nicest person apart (they being the media, opposition, and trolls).
Paul Ryan would be a logical and sensible choice, but he's getting torn up by his own people right now. Hopefully after Clinton's election, he will be a sensible leader in the House. His people won't like that, but I honestly think people are voting for Clinton for one term and they'll be happy to vote for someone else, that's not a Trump, come 2020. The question is can Paul Ryan survive that long as speaker?
Who are the "good" presidential candidates that we are being deprived of? It's really really hard to tell ex ante who is going to be extra good at presidenting - most of it depends on external factors beyond anybody's control. What we can tell is when people are unfit, unprepared, or inexperienced - like Trump or Palin, and sadly, Bernie Sanders as well, and that this has a tendency to lead to disaster. It's also no guarantee that even nominally prepared people are going to be able to do a good job, it's an incredibly treacherous arena to navigate. On some level we can use their party as a proxy - considering that all of the GOP's ideas (mostly..tax cuts and war) since the 1990's have basically failed miserably in terms of bettering our foregin or domestic well being , this is probably a bad choice in terms of electing anybody . But we shouldn't harbor illusions that the alternative is a panacea. It's tempting to say "oh we need some tech/business overlord who can GET THINGS DONE" but I am very skeptical that one person and all of their staffers is going to make a difference - the history of outsider executive officeholders in 2 party states is pretty lousy; Likewise, having no natural allies in a governemtn which is basically designed to protect the status quo puts the executive at a huge disadvantage when he is not aligned with either of hte major blocs. Obama can't get things done controlling large swathes (not swatches, get it Donald?) of the government - an outsider is going to have an even more difficult time. Second and more importantly, while the office of the presidency is extremely important and their power to shape society is no doubt vast, the greater long term challenges that face the country are going to require a lot more than one guy/girl and 4/8 years to solve. You defintiely want capable people there to maximize our chances of success, and more importantly, to avoid self-inflicted wounds (hi Trump!), but ultimately the government can maximize chances of success of initiatives to solve problems rather than guarantee outcomes. That's not an excuse for inaction, it's quite the opposite, but it is realistic. We should try to have a an administration that forcefully accepts the reality of climate change and does something about it, but there's a lot more than just that if we're not going to immolate ourselves. Same with most of the great socio-political challenges of our time. So...go out and vote. Just be realistic.
Man he needs some smoothing out, but had he ran this year he probably would have won. That's if he had gone Republican. Smart guy, and I say it's probable you see him next election cycle.
Paul Ryan is toast. He lost half his base by not backing Trump. He got put in a bad spot and I think his political career is done moving forward.
A President should be the best of us, someone we can all aspire to live up to. That's why Mr. Obama is a great President. So....Tom Hanks?
Trump is old enough to have dated views and leadership strategies, he's also led too self-indulgent an adulthood to engage serious, abstract problems with long-term implications in collaboration with diverse stakeholders. But I don't believe Cuban is objectively that much more successful than him, particularly considering how much of his wealth came from the buildup and sale of one asset some time ago. I also sense a lot of the same armchair quarterbacking from Cuban that Trump was guilty of before he actually ran. Separately, we just can't screw around nominating people who've never served in government, nonsense like this justifies stuff like the original electoral college and super-delegates more and more each day.
Tie-breaking vote in the Senate, certifies electoral college results, can be authorized to swear in certain cabinet appointees, and with modern media scrutiny he has to appear as involved and supportive of the Administration's policies as possible. Separately as much as the Executive branch and national security apparatus have grown since the founding, his level of access and information makes him relevant and influential regardless of his actual command authority.
