2016 Presidential election campaign

1210 posts / 0 new
Last post
alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Get ready for some seriously far right extremism invade DC in 2016.

Republicans are a shoe-in as discourse has been terribly perverted by racism and selfish reactionary hysteria.

Fascism will reign.

Another reason why we can't afford a Harper re-election.


You have been drinking too much of the Liberal koolaid.


Bush could be a shoe-in for the GOP nomination.

Then we will have right-wing Bush running against right-wing Clinton.

At least in Canada we have an alternative to the white mice, black mice syndrome.

Jeb Bush, former Florida governor, to 'actively explore' 2016 presidential run

Bush to make final decision next year 'after gauging support,' spokeswoman says



Jeb Bush's financial activity raises doubts about presidential run


Adam T

NorthReport wrote:

Jeb Bush's financial activity raises doubts about presidential run


“He would be the first president who organized overseas tax havens for billionaire Benedict Arnolds.”

— Paul Begala, quoted by Bloomberg, about Jeb Bush’s presidential ambitions.



He just resigned from Barclay's.


Maybe Jeb Bush is having second thoughts after reflecting on what happened in Canada when the Liberals ran a guy for leader with offshore accounts, eh! Frown

Adam T

Current Republican governors who are considering running for president

1.Rick Scott, Florida

2.Mike Pence, Indiana

3.Bobby Jindal, Louisiana

4.Rick Snyder, Michigan

5.Chris Christie, New Jersey

6.John Kasich, Ohio

7.Nikki Haley, South Carolina? (she recieved some mention up to a few months ago, but things seem to have dried up)

8.Scott Walker, Wisconsin

Former governors who are considering

1.Mike Huckabee, Arkansas

2.Jeb Bush, Florida

3.Robert Ehrlich, Maryland

4.Mitt Romney, Massachusetts (he denies it)

5.George Pataki, New York

6.Rick Perry, Texas



Quit dreamin'

What if Hillary Clinton doesn’t run for President?



From the pic I first thought it was John McCain. After reading a brief bit my second thought was who wrote this shit?

The U.S. senator to watch in 2015By George F. Will | Jan 2, 2015 2:33 pm | Tweet about this on Twitter1Share on Facebook1Share on LinkedIn0Google+0Email to someoneSen. Bob Corker, right, leads members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, including John McCain, left, to a closed-door briefing on Syria in Sept. 2013Sen. Bob Corker, right, leads members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, including John McCain, left, to a closed-door briefing on Syria in Sept. 2013

WASHINGTON — Standing at the intersection of three foreign policy crises and a perennial constitutional tension, Bob Corker, R-Tenn., incoming chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, may be the senator who matters most in 2015. Without an authorization for use of military force (AUMF) tailored to novel circumstances, America is waging war against an entity without precedent (the Islamic State). Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons during negotiations that should involve congressional duties.

And Russia is revising European borders by force and, like Iran, is the object of a U.S. experiment testing the power of economic sanctions to modify a dictator’s behavior. As Congress weighs its foreign policy role regarding these three matters, Corker treads the contested terrain between deference to presidential primacy in foreign policy and the need for collective wisdom and shared responsibility.

Were Barack Obama more prudent than vain, he would want congressional collaborators in problematic foreign ventures. He has, however, ignored the historical norm whereby presidents specify the authority they need. He has offered no substitute for the 60-word AUMF from Sept. 18, 2001, which authorized force against “those nations, organizations, or persons” complicit in 9/11. This was a decade before the Islamic State — which is not a nation and has no clear borders or regime with which to deal — existed.




Adam T

While George Will is a pompous twit, from what little I've read of his, he does seem to be consistent in his view that Congress should take precedence over the presidency.  Whether he only believes this when a Democrat is president or if he always believes it, I have no idea.  I also couldn't care less. Why anybody would care what George Will 'thinks' is beyond me.


It is beginning to look more and more like a Clinton vs Bush finale, and if that happens my hunch is that Bush will take it.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

At this point, what difference will it make. Except for some modicum of respect for secularism, not much distinguishes the Democrats from the Republicans. It was probably different back in the day when unions had clout, but not so much anymore.


Agreed ll.

The disappointment with Obama in the USA organized labour camp, what's left of it, is overwhelming. 


Elizabeth Warren just has to run. If she can't win the Democratic nomination, fat chance, eh, she should team up with Ralph Nadar and run as an Indeperndent, as the American people deserve a real choice, instread of 2 full-blown right-wing parties, for once.

Adam T

Since I last posted on potential candidates a number of additional Republicans have also announced that they are considering running for the Presidency.  Most of them are major surprises.

1.Rick Scott, Florida Governor
2.Robert (Bob) Ehrlich, former Maryland Governor

3.Mitt Romney, fomer Massachusetts Governor, 2012 nominee, 2008 candidate for nomination

4.Rick Snyder, Michigan Governor
5.George Pataki, former New York Governor
6.Lindsay Graham, Senator, South Carolina

On the Democratic side, it appears former Montana governor Brian Schweitzer is likely out.  Since leaving the governorship, he has become the chair of a gold mining company. He led a successful campaign to oust most of the members of the company's board of directors, which suggests to me, that he is in that position for the long term.


Also, these Democrats have either said in the past they are interested in running, or are the most commonly mentioned, as potential presidential candidates should Hillary Clinton pass on running:
1.Janet Napolitano, Arizona, former Arizona Governor 2002-2008, former Secretary of Homeland Security 2009-2013.
2.Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota, U.S Senator 2006-
3.Steve Bullock, Montana, Governor 2012-
4.Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts, U.S Senator 2012-
5.Kristen Gillibrand, New York, U.S Senator 2009-
6.Andrew Cuomo, New York, Governor 2010-
7.Maggie Hasssan, New Hampshire, Governor, 2012-
8.Mark Warner, Virginia, U.S Senator 2008- former Governor 2001-2005
9.Russ Feingold, Wisconsin, former U.S Senator 1992-2010 (defeated)


What a croc of shit this is. Typical gotcha politics.

Petraeus case: 'Charges recommended' for ex-CIA boss


montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

The new president in 2017 will preside over what will then be the world's second largest economy. As Asia increasingly marginalizes the old colonial powers and America, there will be louder voices of xenophobia and outright fascism in those places. Asia will be left to prosper while the West fights its wars in the Middle East. While people are now susceptible to all kinds of propaganda, democrats worldwide need to push to return troops home and campaign against future foreign entanglements.

The problem is when recent US presidents have said they want to back off from the post-war US role, (Bush, Obama), they wound up driving America even worse into it. Instead of treating "terrorist" incidents using legal means, hysteria is whipped up for wars which accomplish nothing and increase resentment against the West.

As far as the Middle East goes, I think it is time we start thinking seriously about some kind of UN administration and control over the region. If there is to be a 'safe haven' for people, can it be entrusted to a government which is only elected by a few?


I do hope Romney runs again as he is a dim bulb.

The Last Temptation Of Mitt

How Romney got from 11 nos to maybe on the question of 2016 — and what he has to decide before he takes the plunge. “Can you imagine what Ted Cruz is going to do to Jeb Bush?” one Romney insider tells BuzzFeed News.




Mitt’s weird excuse for why he lost in 2012 — and how it totally undermines his hopes for 2016

Romney says that a good economy doomed his White House hopes. So how does he win next year when it's even better?



Too bad about Warren if she doesn't run as there is no one else of her calibre around it seems.

After all haven't Canadians and Americans both had enough of the tricle down economics yet.

I suppose not, as the Clintons, the Trudeaus, and the Bushes keep cropping up.

Where is that whack a mole club? 

Looking For Clues: Who Is Going To Run For President In 2016?



Obviously Frum is feeling very threatened by a Clinton candidancy. He shouldn't be as she will deliver basically what Frum wants.

I don't dislike Clinton, I just think Clinton will bring us more of the same keep the rich, rich, and the poor, poor.

Of course very right-wing Frum wants the very right-wing Republicans to win but who gives a tinker's damn what he wants.

Run, Warren, Run

Elizabeth Warren can run for president. She should run for president. And despite her denials, she probably will.

DAVID FRUMJAN 13 2015, 5:09 PM ET

  • Charles Dharapak/AP

Elizabeth Warren today told Fortune magazine that she won’t run for president. If Warren stands by that decision, she’ll do a tremendous disservice to her principles and her party.

Warren is the only person standing between the Democrats and an uncontested Hillary Clinton nomination. She has already made clear what she thinks of the Clintons.

Warren has suggested that President Bill Clinton’s administration served the same “trickle down” economics as its Republicans and predecessors.

Warren has denounced the Clinton administration's senior economic appointees as servitors of the big banks.

Warren has blasted Bill Clinton’s 1996 claim that the era of big government is over and his repeal of Glass-Steagall and other financial regulations.

Related Story

Mitt's Multiple Personalities

Warren has characterized Hillary Clinton herself as a conscienceless politician who betrayed her professed principles for campaign donations.

When Warren said these things, political observers insisted that she was merely exercising her vocal chords, raising a flag indifferent to whether anybody saluted. Jill Lawrence expressed this view concisely in a Politico profile last week: "[Warren] remains vastly influential as long as she retains her unique role in the national conversation. But if she actually were to run, all that would change.”

But really: What kind of a role does a junior senator from the minority party actually play? Yes, she just stopped a third-tier Treasury nomination. Congratulations. She can’t stop two. She certainly can’t enact laws. She cannot (as she painfully discovered during the December CROmnibus debate) stop 

Republicans from unraveling Dodd-Frank stitch by stitch. Once the presidential contest begins in earnest, she’ll be pressured to join the cheering squad for the achievements of the Larry Summers-Bob Rubin years—and to keep silent as Hillary Clinton raises hundreds of millions of dollars from Wall Street Democrats.

And if Hillary Clinton wins in 2016, what role for Warren then? President Clinton will face Republican majorities in both House and Senate. Like her husband in the 1990s, she’ll have to do business with them—and squash any Democrat who objects. If Hillary Clinton loses in 2016, Warren’s role in the Senate will quickly be eclipsed by the next generation of Democrats competing for their chance in 2020. By then, Warren will be nearly 70, older than most presidential candidates, even in our geriatric political era.

On the other hand, you know who plays a truly significant role in the national conversation? First-tier candidates for president, that’s who. Hillary Clinton understood that truth when she ran for president as a not very senior senator in 2008. Yet when Hillary ran that first time, she didn’t have much to contribute to the conversation. She ran, as the saying goes, because she wanted to be something, not because she wanted to do something. Warren plainly does want to do things—and is denying herself her best chance to get them done.

If Elizabeth Warren did seek the Democratic presidential nomination, she’d seize the party and the national agenda. Rank-and-file Democrats seethe with concern about stagnant wages, income inequality, and the malefactions of great wealth.

Left to her own devices, Hillary Clinton will talk about none of that. Hillary Clinton is a candidate so cautious that, compared to her, Michael Dukakis seems the second coming of William Jennings Bryan. Everything about her is polled, focus-grouped, and second-guessed. Her policy positions are measured in millimeters to the left of center. Her speeches are written first and foremost to ensure they can never be quoted against her. How many people remember what Hillary Clinton accomplished as a US Senator? As a Secretary of State? Since the fiasco of her 1993 health care initiative, Hillary Clinton has so feared doing the wrong thing that she has almost always opted to do nothing.

Hillary has so feared doing the wrong thing that she has almost always opted to do nothing.

Lead a fight for America’s working people? Hillary Clinton wouldn’t lead a fight for motherhood and apple pie if motherhood and apple pie were polling below 70 percent.

Nor would it likely assuage Elizabeth Warren if Hillary Clinton ever did speak or act boldly on behalf of Clinton’s core convictions. Few presidential candidates since William McKinley have had more personal, financial, and political connections to America’s wealthiest people than Hillary Clinton. She and her husband have gained a fortune estimated at $100 million that was, to put it bluntly, more or less donated to them by their friends and supporters. Hillary Clinton may gravitate to the less reactionary and more public-spirited billionaires. Yet it’s still 



If I see much more of Romney I think I will puke! Frown

Romney’s best bud flees: Mitt’s most reliable media hack turns her back on him

WaPo's Jennifer Rubin was the hackiest of pro-Romney hacks in 2012, but even she's not on board with Mitt 2016



Trouble in Clinton campaign paradise.

Where's Elizabeth Warren when she is needed, eh! 

Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules




Hillary Clinton is so corrupted even a die heard anti republican cringe at the thought of her running as a president - me.


NorthReport wrote:

Trouble in Clinton campaign paradise.

Where's Elizabeth Warren when she is needed, eh! 

Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules



It's a nothing burger.


Let's hope this guy doesn't win the GOP nomination!

Scott Walker’s Electoral Record Is Just As Impressive As It Looks



Hillary Clinton to Democrats: don't you want to see a female president?

Controversy over use of private email as secretary of state is brushed aside in night of solidarity with progressive movement Emily’s List




If Hillary can pull off a Democratic win for her White House quest, and deliver a big fuck-u to the mainstream press at the same time, it will be quite an accomplishment. 

Hillary Clinton: running to win - but on her own terms

Feminist pioneer or self-interested careerist? Her closest friends, who have known her since she was lured south by boyfriend Bill, provide clues to the riddle as she prepares her bid to become America’s first female president




Jeb bush is the best candidate.

Mr. Magoo

I think we can all see the merits of such a rule, even if that rule is effectively impotent.

If some lobbyist, or special interest group, were to be numpty enough to plead their case into some Republican Senator's "official, accountable" e-mail account, don't you think the "official" response would be something along the lines of:

Dear Constituent,

We value your input and concern, but regret that we cannot provide a response to your question, concern or outrage via electronic mail, but would you like to discuss this further over a game of golf, my treat?

As an aside, I suppose Clinton is too hawkish for many, but unless someone more interesting (and viable) tosses their hat in the ring, I'd surely love to see her give some Republican asshat a bare-ass spanking, and become the first female President.

If only so that someone would be tasked with the job of deciding what to officially call Bill. Laughing

"The former President and first-lord"?  Or what else?  The "Founding Fathers" probably couldn't imagine such a thing and didn't think it that far through.


Well Bill plays a mean Sax, maybe he could be Hillary's Leader of the White House Band.

Unless something else shakes out of this email thingy, it is probably helping Hillary to deal with it now before primary season begins.


Jeb Bush’s tie to fugitive goes against business-savvy image he promotes



Just sayin'

Alternatives to Hillary Clinton 2016


wage zombie

NorthReport wrote:

Alternatives to Hillary Clinton 2016

Bernie Sanders would be great.  Elizabeth Warren unfortunately won't run.

But I'd definitely prefer Hillary Clinton over Jim Webb or Andrew Cuomo.


I could see someone like Martin O'Malley getting into the race, but with the real aim of getting the VP slot.


So do the Americans want a Bush-Clinton clash?

Before you say no too quickly, consider the Republican alternative.



Nate: “I’ve become more convinced that if either Bush or Walker proves flawed – and they both have issues – that Rubio becomes the alternative.”


I agree with this.


Elizabeth Warren presently is running a very distant second to Hillary. If she were closer she might be convinced to give it a shot but big money boys would probably crush her.


She's not running.  I don't think she wants to run against Clinton regardless of the polls or money.


Democrats need Elizabeth Warren’s voice in 2016 presidential race



Martin O’Malley is running the campaign people want from Elizabeth Warren



whoever is the democratic candidate is guaranteed to win.The republicans have been losing the popular vote for more than 4 elections. they are simply too weird. 


the congress and the senate are controlled by the republicans.

wage zombie

The congress is gerrymandered.  In 2012 Democrats got more votes for congress but Republicans elected more representatives.  The Republicans may have gotten more congressional votes in 2014, I am not sure, but that non-presidential elections suffer from much lower turnout.

The Senate gives two seats to every state.  While Republicans do control the senate, on average their senators come from smaller states and so represent fewer people.  If popular vote count was such a thing in terms of senators, Democrats would be ahead.

Due to the gerrymandered congress it may not be possible for the Democrats to win it back.  The Democrats are very likely to win back the senate as 2010 was the Republican wave and most of the senate seats up for election in 2016 are currently held by Republicans.


Barring a disaster, Democrats won't have a chance to win the House until after the next census and redistricting.  2022.


A Frightful Prospect: Hillary vs Jeb 


"The goodnews is that the first six months are usually low key. There is no reason to expect that this year will be different. There is therefore plenty of time to stock up on anti-emetics. If, as seems likely, Hillary and Jeb become the candidates, the need for them will be acute..."



Topic locked