Again, I don’t think the GOP have any claim on being an anti-corruption party. They blatantly nominate inferior candidates on the basis of them having larger campaign chests–that is, on being more successfully bought off by PAC’s. Not that Democrats don’t, but the GOP are really obvious about it.
I stipulate that McAuliffe is a toad, but if Cuccinelli is both a toad and a kook, the best you can hope for is that he wins on the kook vote while the good-government vote stays home.
The corruption you’re talking about is pretty much endemic in politics. McAuliffe isn’t suggesting any direct quid pro quo between campaign contributions and getting state contracts - he’s too smart for that - but regardless of which party, which office, which level of government, significant campaign contributions buy you access to the officeholder, which very often in its turn translates into those government contracts. You think Bush’s Pioneers and whatnot didn’t do well?
I wish that wasn’t the world we’re in, but it is what it is, and isn’t likely to change soon. But if you think that’s a reason to vote for Crazy Cooch rather than Faceless Terry, trust me, Cooch’s big contributors will do quite well if he wins, just as Terry’s will if he wins.
OTOH, Cooch wants consensual oral sex to remain a felony punishable by one to five years in the state penitentiary.
Did you know there’s no statute of limitations on felonies in Virginia? If Cooch has a campaign rally in northern Virginia sometime, I’m gonna have to go over and publicly turn myself in for my past criminal activity. 
The hell we haven’t! The 'Pubbies ran on pocketbook issues, but the second they got into power the passed a state-mandated rape bill. During their 60 day budget session. And they didn’t pass a budget, which was their only job that session. Theocratic double dealing morons.
But thanks to McDonnell’s POTUS ambitions, the bill was toned down. If my wife or daughter get pregnant and want an abortion, instead of the state mandating a cuke being shoved up their twat, the state mandates that some stranger spooges on their belly. An improvement, but a small one.
I absolutely regret my fellow Virginians’ choices in Gov. McDonnell and in a Republican majority in either house of the state legislature. McDonnell is better than Crazy Ken, but so is an inanimate carbon rod.
McDonnell’s approval is high, that’s pretty solid evidence that Virginians don’t regret their choice. And I think there’s little doubt he’d beat McCauliffe if he could run for reelection.
Virginia’s been able to avoid electing a cronyist for a couple of decades now, probably more. I just don’t see why they’d want to introduce that into their state. Especially when they have no particular animus towards Republicans to make them say, “Anything but that!” And Cuccinelli has already proven he can win statewide.
We elected George Allen multiple times, so anything’s possible. Cooch is a nutjob, perhaps there’s hope he’ll lose. He’s abused his prosecutorial powers for personal (political) gain - exactly the wrong type of person you want in office.
Split 3 ways. I give just better than 50/50 that HRC will run. If she does maybe 4 to 1 that she wins, so fair enough odds.
Biden is a reasonable best bet to win if she does not run. So the odds offered are pretty good.
If not him either than someone unknown is more likely going to emerge, and lose. The other serious future names will save their fire for a future date.
I wanna see Hickenlooper vs. Huckabee.
Been dwelling on the this the past few days. Do I want someone who knows the ins-and-outs of Washington(allegedly HRC) or someone more idealistic, but who might not be able to, or know how to, get things done (Warren)?
For now, I’m going with Warren. I think if we keep electing people who SEEM to be there to do the right thing, eventually, the right thing might get done. If we keep sending career politicians in, they’ll deal and nothing will ever truly change.
If HRC runs, though, unless Warren puts together some stirring, rousing speeches, HRC has the nomination. My money’s probably on Hillery if she runs.
If you want an outsider though, why not go with Andrew Cuomo? Warren may check all the progressive boxes, in the same way Rand Paul checks all the boxes for me ideologically, but I wouldn’t be sacrificing much supporting Scott Walker, and Walker has actual governing experience. Likewise, I would think progressives would be more excited about someone like Cuomo.
Sorry man, I lost track of this thread, didn’t mean to leave you hanging.
At this point, I know more about Warren. She’s in the news frequently, and I can’t recall her taking a position I don’t agree with. As we get nearer the election, I’ll naturally learn more about the candidates, but Warren’s been in the news on a near-daily basis these past few months. Sticks in your mind.
Yeah, but there’s more to candidate selection than positions. How would Warren get things done? How would she use the power of the Presidency? Does she have experience compromising with Republicans on major legislation?
That’s why governors rule. In four years, you learn a ton about a governor’s competence, willingness to compromise, and what they really stand for. With Senators, it’s just a bunch of positions. It would be like taking Bruce Willis and expecting him to organize the invasion of Iraq because he looks like he’d make a good general.
Given what we know about Warren right now, any Harvard professor could fill her shoes.
I talked about that very thing in line 2 of post #68. The post you responded to. In fact, it was the impetus for the post: Idealism vs experience and pragmatism.
[QUOTE=Face Intentionally Left Blank]
Do I want someone who knows the ins-and-outs of Washington(allegedly HRC) or someone more idealistic, but who might not be able to, or know how to, get things done (Warren)?
[/QUOTE]
My only criteria would be having the best chance at beating whoever the Republican candidate first and having the most coattails second. Keeping the Republicans out of power would make them a successful president by default, anything else they can accomplish is just gravy.
I like Biden. He’s one of the best VP’s in recent memory. Don’t think he’d make a good President, though, and I think his odds of getting the nomination with his personality and his age are a lot lower than people are giving him credit for.
I really like Warren, but she’s shaking up the Senate too much to let her leave. We need more of what she has in Congress, not less.
Cuomo’s not a bad choice, but even with the advantage Democrats have at the moment, being a D from NY is still an albatross in national politics, I think. Good chance of a VP nomination, I think, but heck, trying to figure out what a Cuomo is going to run for and not run for has been driving Dems crazy for years.
HRC came achingly close to beating Obama in '08 to the point where, if Dems had rules like Rs did, she’d be President. If her health allows it, she’s the nominee, and I think the list of Republicans that could beat her is short.
And I love that attitude. It makes it more likely that a bad Democratic President will be elected, making the GOP’s job much easier and ruining the Democratic brand.
If it helps, Clinton is the candidate I least want to have my favorites go up against. Warren and Biden, I’d relish that fight. Warren because she’s inexperienced and too liberal, Biden because the polls show he has little chance and he’s never been a good national candidate(he’s tried twice).
You’re quite the optimist, considering the daily accumulation of evidence against the GOP learning anything that might make them a palatable choice for someone who isn’t white, old and either rich or racist.
The GOP is out of the White House. Historically, all it takes to get back in is for an incumbent party to misgovern. Something the Democrats did over and over again with the exception of Bill Clinton.
I’ve suddenly remembered a reason why I’d run the democratic candidate most likely to win vs the one I agree with most: The Supreme Court. If she’s at all responsible, Ginsburg (current age: 80, has a history of cancer) will step down before the 2016 election. I’m hoping Breyer will as well (current age: 74). If so, all justices elected under a democratic administration should be young enough to survive the next 3-4 elections before stepping down (barring unexpected, insurmountable health issues).
However, Scalia is currently 77 and Kennedy 76. If the Dems can hold the presidency for another 8 years, both will be into their late 80’s. We might see the court swing progressive. MIGHT. I can’t see Scalia stepping down EVER, and Kennedy won’t want to step down under a democratic administration, but health and old age might force them.
So, give all that, I’ll support whoever polls best.
It’s not responsible to time your retirement for partisan reasons. It exposes the justice as a partisan hack.
The argument about the balance of the Supreme court is used by both parties to urge a vote for their candidate even if he’s inferior. It doesn’t really hold water. As Bush showed, and to a lesser extent Jimmy Carter, a bad President can cost you future elections.
You don’t like Scalia or Thomas? Thank Jimmy Carter for those two.