Ouija said:
Rubio is interesting, not too extreme for your conservative housewives and not too milk toast the guys with the "don't tread on me flags". He's not a presidential candidate though, he's young and doesn't inspire any confidence, I don't think he's that bright. His politics are about where the party would want them but we all know that's only part of the picture. If he had Christie's passion and perspicacity he could get somewhere but he's a bit of a stuffed shirt and Hillary would eat him alive in debates.
Ben Carson is interesting, but not a candidate. His quotes on gay marriage alone would ensure a democratic win even if Hillary came out with a plan to personally paste over the second amendment with a law legalizing the taking of money from kids piggy banks to pay for sensitivity training for CIA black site interrogators. He's good at apologising after the fact but he's smart and doesn't abide people saying what he thinks is the wrong thing, I don't think he could stop himself at various points from an in depth lecture on creationism or other more fringe views. I actually think that a creationist could become president, but they need one of those presidents answers, "my personal faith blah blah, everyone's entitled to their own nlah blah, separation of church and state and the benefits of science in he classroom and faith at home blah blah". Carson is the sort of guy who would defend his position hard and has serious form on doing that, if he stopped doing it he would look muzzled by the party or self censoring to get the big job, that's a massive turn off for the Republican true believers, they crave sincerity.
I think Rubio and Carson both have the potential for a political future, senators or congressmen or even governors perhaps, but not presidents or even presidential candidates, it's a very different set of requirements. I wouldn't vote for them but then I can't and don't have to anyway.
Hillary turns a lot of people off but I personally think that's more talk than action and she has had the better part of a decade to get all her ducks in a row. Bill is more popular than ever (I think there would even be moderate Republicans would look back at 92-2000 as being good years for America) and he'll be out a lot for her. The primaries won't be a super difficult process insofar as there isn't a big idiological gap between the candidates (though you might see a lot of personal stuff). I agree that Biden hasn't got it to win (could end up being a 4 term VP
, he's the perfect perennial VP) and Warren is too liberal for many people's tastes, plus she says she's not running. I really think people underestimate the effect of the Republican primary will have on people coming out to vote for Hillary, doubly if a fringe candidate wins the primary. The reverse scenario would be Elizabeth Warren winning the nomination, if she stayed in fine form you can imagine what it would do for the Republican party, you could get even the most extreme tea party militia types voting for a centrist candidate like Christie or McCain even if they weren't pandering to the right. There's enough of that coming up in 2016 on the Republican side to get a lot of the people who said they wouldnt be voting for Hillary to come out.
I think it's a real shame that John McCain made his play when and how he did. I think he could have been a great Eisenhower style republican president who could have saved the party from itself if he hadn't have tried to change so much to adapt to the prevailing winds or taken on Palin. If he had won the primary in 04 I think he could have run as himself and even taken some dems away from Kerry and won. Christie is the only guy who fits that mould, if he can weather the more extreme attacks I think he's in with a shot but he will have vocal grass roots voters and a few big party players everywhere pulling him in the other direction.
Ultimately I think Hillary takes the election, unless something ugly comes up that people have been waiting to spring on her but she's pretty well vetted by now. She'll get a bit of a bump if the world is falling apart because of her foreign policy experience (though as I mentioned before it won't be decisive).
I think the trend will be towards more and more division. I know a lot is made of Obama's popularity and disapproval ratings, but I think that's the new norm. I don't think you'll ever see Reagan or early Clinton levels of support again for a sitting president. You might see election landslides but only because of the voluntary voting you get in the states and so you might see much lower turn outs on one side compared with the other. I think you might see more third party candidates that are better funded and organised though unless something very transformative happens but I don't think you'll ever see them do better than Nader and Perot regardless of how bitter the 2 party politics become. It's going to take a big shift in thinking to heal the rifts in the US system to get things done, I'm not very hopeful. You can see how political strong men like Putin get to be so popular, after years of inefficient wrangling and infighting people will give up a lot just to see things get done and have the country moving again in a decisive way.
