General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Biden in '16. The Hints are Heavy
From msnbc.com this morning.
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/22/16643500-biden-not-shying-away-from-2016-speculation?lite
He's getting a little old. But, this wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Joe Biden is 70 now.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)for one thing, he's an unrepentant, old-school drug warrior who is likely driving this administration's heavy-handed stance on medical MJ.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)He's made that clear. The question is if he'll get the nomination. If Hillary Clinton enters, I don't see much room for Joe.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)President Hillary Clinton/VP Joe Biden sounds good to me.
He would become the #1 longest running VP in the record books, and help with the continuation of President Obama's agenda.
I personally think Biden can beat almost all of the candidates, except
I think only Hillary (out of any choice) can beat Jeb Bush.
the tea party freaks will be easy for anyone, but it takes a Clinton to beat a Bush to become President.
and if VPBiden runs alongside Hillary, he can take the air away from someone Jeb will Dukakiss like they did to Dukakis.
and Biden would easily beat in a VP debate, anyone including Chris Christie(who never can get the republican nomination anyhow, but possibly the vice president nom.
I don't see though Biden or any male being the nominee.
I do think President Obama foreshadowed it needs to be a woman President next time in his speech yesterday.(and it would go to say that would be Hillary).(note the focus and great stage placement for both Bill and Hillary yesterday).
And being VP for two different Presidents, the first with two full terms, would be a terrific honor, and it would be up to VP Biden whether or not he wanted a fourth term or at that point someone else for the continuation of the continuation in 2020.
imho
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)is to be able to stand in if the pres dies, you need a younger person for that, which is why Hillary is grooming Castro from Texas.
Hillary in herself would be a STEP BACK, and firmly to the right, addign Biden would be a way to yell the younger generatiosn to "gofuck yourself."
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)And one of them can be VP in 2020.But better to make Texas blue,
and in 2020, gerrymander it back to better districts
not being a VP in 2016 would not preclude 2024.
What is it about being Gov. and Senator that people find is not a good job?
Those are the positions that make or break that state and the elections.
What would be achieved if Castro won the Gov. then left, and that younger Bush became the new Gov. just in time for 2020 and the redistricting?
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)and I hate to say this, you want Hillary anointed as the pres in 2016.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)with as little fracture as possible with as many senators/congress/governors being democratic office holders as possible, to gerrymander back in 2020, and to own the election boards
Do you think it will be easy to go against Jeb?
Do you remember what the Bush's did to a great candidate and a super great person, Mike Dukakis?
For one thing, it is a woman's right/turn to be President.
Being that a super landslide of women voted Democratic, and more so in all recent elections, do you not think it is time?
44 male Presidents, 43 white male presidents.
President Obama named 2 women to the US Supreme Court.
But aside from all that, Hillary has the strongest resume of any candidate, perhaps since LBJ himself.
And Hillary would have won in 2008, were it not for President Obama's voters who this time will be voting for her.(Myself included).
And for one thing, isn't it a little ahead of oneselves for either Castro? First off, one has to win the governorship.
Second off, one has to beat Jeb (IMHO, he will be the candidate for the republicans, who will also attempt to have the strongest team, so it suggests Jeb/Christie) and the Bush's fight dirty.
I don't know any other candidate the democrats could offer who is 100% vetted and has all their dirt out in the public as Hillary does, who will continue what President Obama has started
(I don't want any radical change, I want continuation plus another 10% forward for each year in office)
and I want to win.
As for VP, nothing precludes a different VP in 2020, but people love Joe Biden, but time has shown not for President (all all polls show Hillary with something like a 3 to 1 edge of Joe Biden, and nobody else in contention.
But for the Castro's, one they have to win higher office, no one goes from house or mayor to President (if that were the case John Lindsay would have been President in 1972.)
(and look how poorly Ryan was accepted, and most likely he will not run at all in 2016 as he was a dismal almost as bad as John Edwards and Sarah Palin type VP.
You cannot use what Barack Obama did in 2008 as a key to a future election, because that was a once a three generation occurence.
And President Obama's core voters(of which I am one) will eagerly vote for Hillary in 2016
(something I most certainly did not want in 2008),but she has earned it with her great SOS
and with her loyalty to the same things President Obama wants (both were almost identical in issues save for a few in 2008 anyhow, and Hillary would easily have beaten McCain both before and after he picked Sarah in 2008, had it not been for President Obama.
With everything fast tracked now, take a look at that picture the other day released the first day after Hillary returned to work, there were 13 guys in the room with Hillary, and all were focused on Hillary, which is how the others will stack up in the primaries(though I don't expect any serious challenge and do expect Joe Biden to flank her and knock out the other candidates.
I do wish there to be no division, as we saw in 1968, 1980, 2000, 2004 what happens when there is division.
If it were possible, would love a Hillary/Jerry Brown ticket to make Jerry Brown one of the immortals, but that would be my personal want, am realistic to know that won't be happening.
(btw-immortals being President/Vice President as everyone forever knows all the Presidents,
and the list of VPs is almost as few as there are Presidents.)
One thing we cannot do is cede from having a women as the nominee in 2016, to do so
will give the other side an opening we would never recover from were that to happen.
If Hillary were not to run, then we can talk about others at that time, but it would be a mess,
and it would give Jeb an opening to win.
Besides, it would be great to have a race with two titans against each other, idealogically speaking.
We never had a Kennedy/Bush election
and we didn't get a chance for LBJ to kick Nixon's butt like should have happened in 1968.
We would have won 1968, there but for division in the party, and having not the strongest candidates run in 1968 and 1972.
(and 1984 and 1988 for that matter, should have been Jerry Brown/Jesse Jackson).
One has to be able to be not only a love person nationwide, but a player of the game of politics.(the best player in the match).
The Bush's know how to win, therebut for the Clinton's
(if it were rock/paper/scissors, the Bush's were the scissors that divided, the Clinton's the rock that crushed the scissors, but President Obama the paper (paper being the brains) that covered the rock in 2008.
In 2016, it is a different time, different wants, different field of those under the two strongest in each party (whether the republicans go with their strongest or self-implode is the question,being that anyone can beat any of the others, but if its Jeb, it will take Hillary to do so, and of course, one has to assume it to be Jeb(not Christie because he can't win their nomination, but he could be VP,and the presumption being Jeb would ignore him were he to win office altogether),but because there would be no time after that to change course anyhow, have to assume Jeb and the entire Bush machine which has not gone away like people (not me) thought they would.
And one has to worry about that younger Bush running for Gov. in 2018, therefore the strongest Texan candidate should be Gov. and not run for President.
As said, 2016 will not be 2008, and well the cliche applies- lightning doesn't strike in the same place twice very often, would not expect 2016 to be patterened after 2008
and again-why do people think being Senator or Gov. is a bad thing?
Teddy was senator for 40 years. And the single most powerful senator since LBJ.
(wish we had either in the senate again right now to muscle things through).
and no, to any unvetted nationally, person who we don't know what skeletons are in their closet.
(aka Andrew Cuomo. There must be some reason Mario did not get on that plane, and refused
Bill Clinton's, what appeared to be genuine offer TWICE for US Supreme Court justice.
Whatever that skeleton was, is still there and has never been revealed(that plus the smear in that one Gov. race where Andrew was Mario's manager.)
But no to anyone not nationally vetted, and none of the others have been nationally vetted.
Remember how the Bush's Dukakissed Dukakis and what the repubs did to John Kerry in 2004,
and to Al Gore in 2000.
The object is to win with the strongest.
BTW, I disagree with the logic that Hillary needs someone real young.
One of the reasons President Obama picked Joe Biden was to pick someone older who was respected in the party and to reassure people.
It is why I would suggest Hillary have two VPs, much like FDR had more than one, and in her reelection campaign in 2020, that would be the time to have a younger VP, not in 2016.
Having Joe Biden as VP in 2016 would show continuation and not radical difference, and I am betting the public of Democratic voters will want more of what President Obama has done(like a third term if that were possible), and not any major change from that.
Also, don't think it wise for Hillary to give an advantage to the 46th President race by having a younger candidate, because, well, should by that time, say Michelle Obama be senator from Illinois, well, goes without saying...
and what about either Gov. Patrick from Mass. or soon to be Senator Booker from NJ?
Picking Biden for VP, would be a benign choice, that doesn't inflame any of the other eligible candidates and doesn't create a backlash anywhere.(especially if Biden finishes #2 in the primaries, it would be a natural).
And yes, I want President Obama to be picked by then President Clinton for the US Supreme Court, say in 2018. (the job President Obama was born to have, and it has been done in the past(Taft).
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Glitterati
(3,182 posts)He's planning on running. That's why he got the gun deal - to get the press. And why he is negotiating for financial deals.
He's already running.
sad-cafe
(1,277 posts)I love it! I would vote for him!
DAVEDCHICAGO
(26 posts)
Bucky
(54,013 posts)I supported Biden in 2008. He'd've hammered down those lunatics on the right long since, rather than follow Obama's slow-on-the-draw approach to appeasing them. That said, the energy level required to run this country, much less to get through the circus of being elected to office, just isn't in a man at that age.
Dems have always nominated their winners from younger generations. Kennedy was 43, Carter 50, Clinton 46, Obama 47. I'd suggest following the success model.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)but I don't believe he or Hilary Clinton will run. Both have had great long careers and I'm sure will want to retire. There are plenty of rising stars in the party