snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Soapbox Derby

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 28 December 2012, 11:23 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,653
Soapbox For 2016 Presidential Race, Look for Hillary Clinton vs. Rick Santorum

As soon as Barack Obama was re-elected on Nov. 6, speculation quickly turned to who might run in 2016. Hillary Clinton and Rick Santorum are two names frequently tossed around as likely choices.

http://news.yahoo.com/2016-president...184100698.html
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 28 December 2012, 11:28 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,653
United States

Quote:
As a trailblazer, Clinton can easily be the first female candidate for president.
Umm, a number of women have already been candidates for President of the United States, just not as nominees of either of the major parties.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 29 December 2012, 02:55 PM
Ramblin' Dave's Avatar
Ramblin' Dave Ramblin' Dave is offline
 
Join Date: 11 May 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 13,120
Default

Santorum as the GOP nominee? We could never get that lucky...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 29 December 2012, 03:41 PM
Magdalene Magdalene is offline
 
Join Date: 30 October 2001
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,695
Default

You might be scared/suprised how many Catholics I know who want Santorum to be president....one of them having gone so far as to say it's about time we had our first *real* Catholic president. Kennedy, in his opinion, not counting as a true Catholic since Kennedy was willing to compromise his religious faith for politics.

Magdalene
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 29 December 2012, 03:53 PM
gopher's Avatar
gopher gopher is offline
 
Join Date: 06 January 2005
Location: Sunderland, Northumbria, UK
Posts: 2,155
Default

If Mr Santorum is a "true" Catholic will he come out against the Death Penalty?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 30 December 2012, 05:41 AM
MapleLeaf's Avatar
MapleLeaf MapleLeaf is offline
 
Join Date: 17 September 2003
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 13,714
Default

Why would Clinton run? I just don't see what's in it for her. I mean I know it would be the crowning achievement on what has already been a very decorated life of public service. But she'll be 69 in 2016, and frankly I imagine she doesn't want to have any more mountains of shit thrown at her. She's always been the subject of right-wing vitriol. Imagine how much more she'd get as presidential candidate on the heels of an 8-year Obama presidency and the GOP itching to get back into power by any means necessary.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 30 December 2012, 06:04 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,384
Default

Why does anyone run? A combination of attraction to the power and status and a sincere belief they'll do a good job, I expect. I personally was originally dubious of a Clinton run in '16, but I'm more inclined to think it's possible now (and if not her, we had better start hearing from some possibilities soon. I am not sure the party would be that thrilled with nominating Joe Biden). Certainly retiring from SecState both allows her to spend her time and energy on building up a campaign, and also can separate her a bit from the administration so she can avoid having to defend it where needed. As for dealing with the right-wing crap, it didn't discourage her from running in 2008 (when one of the reasons I favored Obama over her in the primaries was knowing how much the right hated Clinton and would have tons of mud to sling -- I underestimated their capacity for coming up with so much new mud so quickly). The nuts who believe her husband was a cocaine dealer and she murdered Vince Foster aren't going to be voting for any Democrat anyway -- and she had a good deal of success working with Republicans while she was in the Senate, or at least earning their respect, so she may think she has as good a chance as any Democrat can have nowadays of getting their cooperation occasionally. I don't yet take it as certain she'll run, but if she does, I think she'd be awfully hard to beat in the primaries. (Then again, a lot of people thought that in 2008, too.)

Santorum, on the other hand....I would like to think his nomination would be the straw that would finally break the Republican party, either causing them to finally try to purge the extremists, or forcing the sensible ones to finally flee. I would like to think that....but I'm not at all sure of it.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 30 December 2012, 06:14 PM
Simply Madeline's Avatar
Simply Madeline Simply Madeline is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,525
Default

Quote:
Victory in the Democratic primary is hers for the taking due to the runner-up status in 2008.
Hey, remember in 2006 when victory in the 2008 Democratic primary was "hers for the taking"? How'd that work out?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 30 December 2012, 06:16 PM
Morgaine's Avatar
Morgaine Morgaine is offline
 
Join Date: 23 February 2002
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX
Posts: 12,300
Default

If Santorum is the candidate I'll leave the party. I don't know where I will go but I will definitely leave.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 30 December 2012, 08:16 PM
ThistleS's Avatar
ThistleS ThistleS is offline
 
Join Date: 09 November 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 9,102
Default

If Santorum is the candidate I will have to rethink even living in America. It sickens me that one of the major parties would consider him fit for the highest office.

ETA: I know people say this all the time about the opposition, if so-and-so wins I'll leave the country. It is nevertheless true.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 30 December 2012, 11:32 PM
Saint James Saint James is offline
 
Join Date: 16 July 2007
Location: Ventura, CA
Posts: 1,259
Icon102

For starters, the author is playing fast and loose with his assumptions. Romney didn't finish 2nd in 2008 - he was a close third after Huckabee. Though there is some tendency for the Republicans to nominate someone who has placed well in a previous election. Actually, in a review of the past 40 years (anyone care to check my work) only two nominees have fit the criterion described in the OP:

Quote:
The candidate who gets second place in his or her party's contested primary in one year typically wins the nomination the next time a primary is contended without an incumbent.
Bob Dole - who was second in 1988, and George HW Bush - who was second in 1980 (though it could easily be argued that his selection had more to do with being the sitting vice president than on past performance.

Reagan doesn't quite count, as he was running against an incumbent, though I suppose you might get a little wiggle room there.

They conveniently overlook W. - who didn't run in '96, and Pat Buchanan - who tried to be a 'Reagan' in '92 by challenging GHWB.

Democrats don't seem to fit this pattern at all: Obama was running for Senate in '04, and Edwards was barely a blip in a distant 3rd in '08. In '00 the runner up was Bradley - did not run in '04. Gore was not the second place finisher in '92 - though he was at least a candidate - in '88 (finishing 3rd after Jessie Jackson). Speaking of which, Jackson was not the party nominee in '92 despite his previous 2nd place finish. Second place in '84 went to Gary Hart, who was at least considered a frontrunner until an affair did him in. In '76 the Democratic second place went to Jerry Brown.

Speculation at this point is mostly about name recognition. Both parties have a rather large stable of potential contenders available.

I think Santorum will run, and have a decent shot. I don't consider Hillary likely to run, though the right will constantly assume her the nominee until the race gets underway. Biden might, but is a year older than Clinton and I have my doubts about his getting much traction.

Generally most contenders come either from the Senate or Governor's mansion (thus far, all elected presidents have held at least one of six positions: VP, Senator, Governor, Representative, cabinet official, General) In the past 50 years it's been one of the first 3. So here's my wild guess as to likely contenders:

Democratic party:
Evan Bayh - his name's been tossed around for almost 2 decades, maybe he'll decide the time is right.
Kathleen Sebelius - a cabinet official and former Democratic governor of a very red state (Kansas). Though just a little younger than Clinton and Biden, so I'm not sure if that will be a factor.
Janet Napolitano - another former red state governor (Arizona) and cabinet official. If the Democrats pick a female candidate, this is where my guess would lie.
Andrew Cuomo - Governor of a large state, and from a political dynasty.
Tim Kane - a Senator and former Governor from the now swing state of Virginia.
Mark Warner - See Tim Kane. Same positions, different years.
Jerry Brown - A dark horse guess. He's still kicking and may still have presidential ambitions.

Republican party:
Rick Santorum - He will probably run, and probably be the standard bearer for the religious right. If nominated he will likely go down in flames as the influence of the RR has been waning.
Bobby Jindal - if the GOP decides that they would like someone who isn't white, and wants to make a play for younger voters - he is a rising star in the party. Position-wise he sounds all the right notes for conservative stalwarts (anti-choice, anti-science, anti-gay, etc).
Chris Christie - His biggest weakness is the social attitude against people who are seriously overweight. Then again, given how many Americans are overweight, perhaps not.
Rick Perry - W. pt 2, anyone? Probably not a strong contender, but might run.
Paul Ryan - only if Ron and Rand Paul doesn't run, as they appeal to about the same demographic.
Rand Paul - he may pick up his father's banner (assuming Ron doesn't run yet again)
Tim Pawlenty - A conservative in a liberal-leaning state, but probably not rabid enough for the current state of the GOP
Jon Huntsman - another (relatively) sane conservative. Doesn't have much of a chance, but may run anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 31 December 2012, 12:31 AM
JoeBentley's Avatar
JoeBentley JoeBentley is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 21,796
Default

Is there really any precedent for predicting a Presidential Candidate this far out?

And why are people completely discounting Joe Biden? I thought running the VP after being part of two successful Presidential campaigns was pretty much a no brainer. Bush Sr ran after Reagan, Gore ran after Clinton... I sorta figured the Dems would just sorta default to running Biden in 16.

My best guess is that '16 is going to be Biden versus a Republican that isn't that well known right now.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 31 December 2012, 12:59 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,328
Default

There's not much enthusiasm for Biden. Kind of like Gore after Clinton. It's not worth losing the White House to run the VP just because that's expected. I would much prefer many many other candidates to Biden.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 31 December 2012, 01:29 AM
Simply Madeline's Avatar
Simply Madeline Simply Madeline is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint James View Post
Democratic party:
I'd add Martin O'Malley and Deval Patrick to your list of Dems, and Marco Rubio to the Repub list.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Is there really any precedent for predicting a Presidential Candidate this far out?
Here's a WaPo article from Nov 2004 speculating on Mark Warner's chances in 2008. So, yes there's precedent, but predictions are pretty meaningless this far out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
There's not much enthusiasm for Biden.
Biden will be 74 years old in 2016. He also has 2 failed presidential bids in his past.

Last edited by Simply Madeline; 31 December 2012 at 01:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 31 December 2012, 01:33 AM
chillas's Avatar
chillas chillas is offline
 
Join Date: 09 September 2002
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 11,830
Default

I'll also add that, while I personally believe that Biden would be a fine President, he's saddled with the public perception of being ... well, Joe Biden.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 31 December 2012, 07:28 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,653
United States

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
And why are people completely discounting Joe Biden? I thought running the VP after being part of two successful Presidential campaigns was pretty much a no brainer.
Actually, it's rather rare for a sitting Vice President to win the presidency himself. George H.W. Bush is the only one who's done it since the early 19th century.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 31 December 2012, 08:48 AM
Ramblin' Dave's Avatar
Ramblin' Dave Ramblin' Dave is offline
 
Join Date: 11 May 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 13,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint James View Post
For starters, the author is playing fast and loose with his assumptions. Romney didn't finish 2nd in 2008 - he was a close third after Huckabee. Though there is some tendency for the Republicans to nominate someone who has placed well in a previous election. Actually, in a review of the past 40 years (anyone care to check my work) only two nominees have fit the criterion described in the OP:
Yes, the OP is guilty of poor phrasing on the matter. But it is true that the Republican nominee is almost always someone with a claim to have earned his turn:

1960: Nixon was the sitting VP.
1964: No one with a plausible claim to the mantle ran, and the nomination ended up with the party's worst candidate of the postwar era.
1968: Nixon had barely lost in 1960 and no one since then had done anything to top him in the party hierarchy.
1980 (next time the GOP nominee wasn't the incumbent) : Reagan had run twice, had long since established himself as the darling of the right wing, and had nearly won the nomination last time out.
1988: Bush was the sitting VP, and had made a strong showing in 1980.
1996: Dole was Senate GOP leader, had run for president twice and VP once, and had been near the top of the heap forever if never quite at the top.
2000: The only exception other than 1964, but Bush did have the unique advantage of being the son of the last Republican president. Besides, the only other candidate with any claim to "it's my turn" was Dan Quayle, who was widely seen as damaged goods.
2008: McCain had made a strong showing against Bush in 2000, memorably upsetting him in New Hampshire.
2012: Romney had made the strongest showing in 2008 among those who ran. Huckabee probably had a stronger claim to being next in line, but he didn't run.


So given that precedent, plus the Republicans' penchant of late for nominating extremists, I'd say Santorum has a decent shot at the nomination. And yes, that frightens me!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01 January 2013, 08:24 PM
Spamamander's Avatar
Spamamander Spamamander is offline
 
Join Date: 01 January 2006
Location: Central WA
Posts: 4,383
Default

I just don't want to hear Santorum-based headlines for four entire years. There's only so much brain bleach in the world.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04 January 2013, 06:33 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,653
Florida Hillary Clinton Will Take on Marco Rubio in 2016

The 2016 presidential race will feature Hillary Clinton versus Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. Here's why:

http://news.yahoo.com/presidential-p...173300689.html
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04 January 2013, 05:40 PM
Latiam's Avatar
Latiam Latiam is offline
 
Join Date: 19 June 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,484
Default

What I don't get - and there's probably a reason and I just don't know it - is, why do you only let your Presidents in for two terms and then they're out? Our Prime Ministers stay for as long as they're re-elected (though in the case of Harper I kind of wish we had your rule, just once).
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Clinton Presidential Library Releases Files on UFOs Jonny T Spook Central 2 28 December 2011 05:47 AM
Hillary Clinton in Kosovo snopes Politics 64 11 April 2008 08:57 PM
(Hillary) Clinton quotes snopes Questionable Quotes 16 07 September 2007 05:22 AM
Dick Morris on Hillary Clinton snopes Politics 3 14 August 2007 04:55 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.