What "old news" candidate would you like to see again?

Politics & Elections
1

With Mitt Romney in the news trying to run for President a third time, and with Hillary Clinton definitely trying a second time, it got me thinking about failed Presidential candidates who deserve another look from the public. Since we’re still in the part of the election cycle where candidates decide whether to get in the race, and since some will be repeat contenders, what failed Presidential candidates do you think really deserve a new look from voters? Maybe their first race failed because they were overshadowed, or couldn’t raise enough money, or had a single gaffe that wasn’t really all that big a deal in hindsight?

Naming a current big name who we know is running is cool, but I’d also like to hear some names that aren’t really likely to get into the race but who would make good Presidents if they could just get people to notice them.

I’ll put in the first four names, two Democrats and two Republicans:

Democrats: Tom Vilsack- was a good governor who was actually the first candidate to jump into the 2008 race and promptly went nowhere. He was also considered a possible VP contender if Clinton won the nomination. ALthough he certainly won’t be President in 2016, I do think Clinton should keep him on her short list should she win the nomination.

Bill Richardson- probably the most qualified man to be President in the country. Two term governor, Secretary of Energy, UN representative. He was overshadowed by the big three in 2008: Obama, Clinton, Edwards, but with Clinton the only big name in the race, I believe Richardson would be able to rise above the other candidates to be Clinton’s main competitor if he got into the race. Hopefully he’ll receive consideration as VP as well.

Republicans: Tommy Thompson- absolutely negative charisma, he’s anti-charismatic, actually a little creepy looking, but he’s got experience and accomplishments.

John Kasich- all right, he’s a fairly well known name and likely to run, but he did have a failed bid for President in 2000 I believe.

Since Kasich is already taken seriously as a contender for the nomination, I’ll throw in Tim Pawlenty. And John Huntsman while I’m at it, even though he seems to have burned his bridges with the Republican base.

2

I think Michael Lind would, but he has never in his life sought elected office, AFAIK.

3

That’s a new guy! Off topic! Off topic!:slight_smile:

4

OK, well, I think Ralph Nader would make a very good POTUS – but, frankly, I never voted for him when he ran, and I never really wanted him for POTUS.

No, I want Ralph Nader for USAG.

[sound of bowels opening in boardrooms all across America] :smiley:

5

Jerry Brown would make a good POTUS. He’s done a wonderful job with California lately, and seems to have grown much less of a “Governor Moonbeam” than he was in the '70s.

6

I agree on Jerry Brown, and he is considering a run last I heard. I think he’d do very well as President.

7

Yeah, Brown’s terrific, he’d make a great president. He’s got a proven track record of reducing the deficit after the bungling by the previous GOP administration, and worked for a while with a Democratic supermajority showing a textbook example of how great liberals are for the budget (even though that’s not necessary since Obama’s fixed the economy). California would be really sad to lose him though, but he’d be one of the best presidents in modern times, maybe even better than Obama despite how high he’s set the bar. No one in the GOP’s current rogue’s gallery can match him in policy and accomplishments

8

I… Agree with that too. That hurt. Except for liberals being better on budget issues. Brown has shown how liberals CAN be better on budget issues, but there’s a reason he’s considered a maverick and a heterodox: he believes math trumps compassion.

But let’s be clear, he’s no Mitch Daniels, or Mark Warner, or John Kasich, or Scott Walker. Those guys are Grade A on the budget.

9

I wouldn’t mind seeing Al Gore run, if there were any realistic chance of it at all. Eight years as VP is about as relevant as experience can get, and he’s already come within a technicality compounded by a mistake of winning. Plus, his time out of office has firmed up some policy positions with him that we desperately need.

10

Yes, Al Gore. I’ve always liked him too. And it seems to me that he’d be a frontrunner even in the current race should he enter. I guess he just figures he should retire with his 1-0 record in Presidential races.

11

Unfortunately, however . . . Jerry Brown is now 76 years old.

That’s gonna be a problem with any “old news” candidate. People are already saying Hillary is too old, and she’s only 67.

12

And he’s 66.

13

I think age should be a non-issue unless a candidate is showing that his age is a problem. Analysts keep saying that “The Presidency ages you, it’s a grueling job”, yet that theory has never been tested unless you count Ronald Reagan. And I doubt his dementia was caused by the Presidency.

For me at least, age, whether young or old, is just not a consideration. Jerry Brown’s a vibrant 76, and Bob Dole is still with us nearly 20 years after he ran for President and sharp as a tack.

I will say that it makes the VP selection more important than the candidate is aged, but the only rule there is don’t screw it up. Brown can just pick Vilsack or Richardson and we’re fine.

14

Gary Hart. His wounds were entirely self-inflicted, but that was one smart dude with tons of qualifications. Nazarene College, Yale Divinity School, Yale Law. Was a US Attorney and a two term Senator. He also played a key role in the early days of the electronic revolution. He understood what was going on.

I wouldn’t mind seeing Sarah Palin run again, just for the comedy.

15

And that would be the first Democrat mentioned that I’d say no too. Hart is smart, no doubt, but qualifications? An attorney and a Senator with a great education? Tom Vilsack and Bill Richardson alone blow him out of the water in that respect, as does Joe Biden, John Kerry, and a million other guys. All he’s got is that he might be smarter than all of them, but if we’re so interested in a genius let’s just nominate Rush Holt. He’s the smartest politician by far.

16

But, it did begin while he was president. Which was an extremely dangerous development. It did not happen because he was president, it happened because he was old. That’s something we should always bear in mind before backing an elderly candidate – he might be doing just fine now, but will he four years from now?

17

All true, I’m sure, but, when he ran for POTUS, I was never clear about the general direction of his politics or policies or ideas. His whole thing seemed to be, “Look at me! I’m qualified!”

18

What is the actual frequency of dementia at various ages? Is it really all that common for people in their 70s to suffer from it?

It looks to me like 80 and up is when we should start worrying, not 70 and up, or 65 and up as you seem to be suggesting with Al Gore.

19

Gary Hart’s main purpose in 1984, as I understood it, was to create a more modern Democratic Party, to move past the special interest coalitions and try to form a party with broader appeal. Mondale, in his critique, was a creature of the special interest coalitions within the party and it’s hard to form a permanent electoral coalition out of groups that don’t get along all that well. He proved to be right. The Democrats lost white blue collar workers. Of course that problem had started to surface before the 80s, but it really accelerated during that decade and has continued to get worse today.

While his recognition of the Democrats’ problem was apt, that didn’t make him Presidential material.

20

I was a Bruce Babbitt fan back when he ran in 1988.

On the other side, I thought Jodi Rell was a pretty good governor back when I was a Connecticut resident. I’m not sure she ever had presidential aspirations, though.