Originally Posted by Eric the Green

These losses in 2008 and 2012 were inevitable; Obama was the stronger candidate according to the cosmic indications; and better yet for you guys, according to the demographic indications too. McCain and Romney didn't lose because they had run and lost the primaries before, and you certainly can't apply that logic to such a Democratic candidate.



Paying off a campaign debt makes her out of touch with the needs of Americans. I don't follow that one. She may not have to run as hard in a primary as she did in 2008, at least, since there's no-one to challenge her, but don't assume she can't run hard against Republicans. Why would you assume this? She took the Sec of State position because her time has passed; not because it would be a stepping stone to the White House? Again, I don't think your conclusion holds.

Appointed positions are for people who can't get elected. It's not much of stepping stone to anything except a nice retirement and other appointed positions. Being millions of dollars in debt isn't the out of touch part, the fact that she was able to pay it off in five years is. Regular people don't have that luxury. She's simply a blood in the water candidate. She wasn't able to get enough people across enough land mass to get the nomination last time, I sincerely doubt she'll have enough this time. Romney only got the nomination because literally every other candidate was torn to shreds. McCain was pretty much unwanted by the party hardcore but was seen as the only option amongst everyone else. Not a liked option. Not a wanted option. The only possible option.

Any other time, it'd be like the 2000 primary. Lots of viable options. I expect 2016 to be the exact same way as republican's 2000 and democrats 2008, lots of contenders who really want it. Hillary isn't going to get the same pass as McCain or Romney. Nobody is just going to hand her the hot seat.

Originally Posted by Kepi

I remember the 2000 primary. The thing is, look at the people Bush was running against. Now, consider... John McCain lost in 2000 and lost the 2008 election. Mitt Romney lost the 2008 primary then lost the 2012 election. Once there's blood in the water, it's like saying "yeah, this guy isn't as good as the last, but whatever, it's cool, yeah?" It's not something you can build a whole lot of energy around. It's rare you see a blood in the water candidate make it into the election, it's pretty much impossible to get them elected. The republicans have tried twice to do that, and they only choose to do it in years when the winds weren't in their favor.

Meanwhile there's Hillary as a person. The last time she went in, she went millions into debt to lose. That's not just bad planning that'd be a talking point I'd use against her in the next election were I running. The fact that it only took her 5 years to pay off a multi million dollar non-collateralized debt would be my next talking point, as it would show she was vastly out of touch with the needs of the average American. Not only do I think that she didn't have the will to run a campaign that hard again, but I also think she's very smart and she knows full well that losing that one time opens her up to all sorts of weaknesses she just can't defend against. She's a smart lady. She's party loyal. And I think she took the Secretary of state position because she saw the writing on the wall, and knows her website of opportunity has passed.

But occasionally a previously unsuccessful candidate has become president. Reagan and Nixon in both happened in the saeculum. In fact, they just about bookend the last awakening. Without Nixon there could have been no Reagan. Now for the record I consider Hillary's tech problems for being a part of her undoing. But most of all Obama was a juggernaut.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Appointed positions are for people who can't get elected. It's not much of stepping stone to anything except a nice retirement and other appointed positions. Being millions of dollars in debt isn't the out of touch part, the fact that she was able to pay it off in five years is. Regular people don't have that luxury. She's simply a blood in the water candidate. She wasn't able to get enough people across enough land mass to get the nomination last time, I sincerely doubt she'll have enough this time. Romney only got the nomination because literally every other candidate was torn to shreds. McCain was pretty much unwanted by the party hardcore but was seen as the only option amongst everyone else. Not a liked option. Not a wanted option. The only possible option.

I don't know anyone besides yourself who has any idea how long it should take to pay off a campaign debt. I don't think it's an issue. Secretary of State and other cabinet posts have sometimes been stepping stones to the presidency. Maybe not often, but she has also been a senator. How you describe McCain, is pretty much what Hillary is. There are no other options. She'd have no trouble getting nominated; getting elected could be another story. But it looks like she has a reasonable shot.

Any other time, it'd be like the 2000 primary. Lots of viable options. I expect 2016 to be the exact same way as republican's 2000 and democrats 2008, lots of contenders who really want it. Hillary isn't going to get the same pass as McCain or Romney. Nobody is just going to hand her the hot seat.

I don't see anyone with any chance on the horizon now.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know anyone besides yourself who has any idea how long it should take to pay off a campaign debt. I don't think it's an issue. Secretary of State and other cabinet posts have sometimes been stepping stones to the presidency. Maybe not often, but she has also been a senator. How you describe McCain, is pretty much what Hillary is. There are no other options. She'd have no trouble getting nominated; getting elected could be another story. But it looks like she has a reasonable shot.

I don't see anyone with any chance on the horizon now.

That's because it's over 2 years away. Lots of people have stated an interest, but announcing this early? You must be joking.

Originally Posted by Kepi

That's because it's over 2 years away. Lots of people have stated an interest, but announcing this early? You must be joking.

Name anyone who has stated an interest, who has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Name anyone who has stated an interest, who has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected.

Jim Webb and Martin O'Malley. And that's just from my neck of the woods.

Personally, I think Tim Kaine is the real dark horse here. He hasn't been out in front a whole lot, but he's been doing a lot as head of the DNC, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him their his hat in early 2015.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Jim Webb and Martin O'Malley. And that's just from my neck of the woods.

Personally, I think Tim Kaine is the real dark horse here. He hasn't been out in front a whole lot, but he's been doing a lot as head of the DNC, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him (put) his hat (in) in early 2015.

They don't have the name recognition. They have not made themselves into celebrities the way Obama had, and could not command the young netroots support Obama did either. Also, Kaine and Webb are not to the left of Hillary, so they can't appeal to that constituency.

FWIW: O'Malley cosmic score is 14-14

Tim Kaine is a smart, nice fellow, and it shows in his chart. But just watching him and being familiar with him, I don't see enough energy in him to run. His cosmic score is only 8-15. He doesn't have big problems as a candidate; just a lot of small ones.

It will take someone to beat Hillary for the nomination. There is no someone. And unless Hillary runs, the Democrats won't have someone! IF the cosmic indications are that the Democrats will win, Hillary is the only candidate who can fulfill this expectation.

Bernie Sanders has the best score (10-0); he could run a good campaign. I think he's too far to the left and too old to actually win though.

Yeah, the Democratic bench, other than Hillary, is really light at the moment. Not a lot of credible candidates with nationwide name recognition.

For the Dems, for 2016, it is looking an awful lot like Hillary or bust. People like Webb are more likely to be cabinet picks than anything else.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Yeah, the Democratic bench, other than Hillary, is really light at the moment. Not a lot of credible candidates with nationwide name recognition.

For the Dems, for 2016, it is looking an awful lot like Hillary or bust. People like Webb are more likely to be cabinet picks than anything else.

Of course, in 1991, things were looking pretty grim for the Democrats also. President H.W. Bush had sky-high approval ratings after the quick victory in Kuwait. All of the big Democratic names were sitting that one out and the front runner, a governor from a small state, had issues with extramarital affairs and draft dodging accusations. What was his name again? ... Oh yeah, Bill Clinton.

I'm certainly not saying that 2016 will be 1992 redux. All I'm saying is that a lot can happen in 2 years.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Of course, in 1991, things were looking pretty grim for the Democrats also. President H.W. Bush had sky-high approval ratings after the quick victory in Kuwait. All of the big Democratic names were sitting that one out and the front runner, a governor from a small state, had issues with extramarital affairs and draft dodging accusations. What was his name again? ... Oh yeah, Bill Clinton.

I'm certainly not saying that 2016 will be 1992 redux. All I'm saying is that a lot can happen in 2 years.

It's certainly possible. I just don't think it is likely. The "big names" don't look like they're sitting this one out. I dunno, maybe she doesn't run, or gets trounced in the primary again by some charismatic minor pol running to her left. Maybe 2008 is the proper analogy, I just don't think it's the most probable course of events.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Of course, in 1991, things were looking pretty grim for the Democrats also. President H.W. Bush had sky-high approval ratings after the quick victory in Kuwait. All of the big Democratic names were sitting that one out and the front runner, a governor from a small state, had issues with extramarital affairs and draft dodging accusations. What was his name again? ... Oh yeah, Bill Clinton.

I'm certainly not saying that 2016 will be 1992 redux. All I'm saying is that a lot can happen in 2 years.

Bill Clinton, though, did have quite a bit of notoriety in 1991 thanks to his position as leader of the governors association, and mentioned by people as a possible candidate.

But using my cosmic indicator, let's look at some possible dark horse candidates whose scores are higher than Hillary's, and the obstacles they face with the electorate right now.

Let's look at the bright horse first. Hillary Clinton (score 9-8) also has Uranus rising (like FDR, Th. Jefferson). Planets rising or in the 1st house give candidates an advantage, as with LBJ (5 such planets) and Bill Clinton (4 such planets), because it indicates a dominant and powerful personality. But I can't add this to the score, because I don't know the birth times of most candidates.

(recall that Dubya's score is 15-3 and Bill Clinton's is 13-2; Ronald Reagan's was 14-4; all 3 also had rising planets)

Bernie Sanders has a perfect score, with an OK positive number, 10-0. He might run, but he's old (war baby Silent, age 75 in 2016) and probably too far left.

We just saw Richard Blumenthal comment on the General Motors internal investigation, taking an anti-corporate stand. I noticed that he is the most confident and good-looking guy I've seen among possible candidates. Trouble is, not only is he old (a few months older than Bill Clinton and George W. Bush), although he looks younger, but he's only been a senator a couple of years. No-one has mentioned him as a candidate except me. But (except for Sanders) he has the best score I've seen among possible contenders so far: 15-3.

Corey Booker was just elected New Jersey senator. He is Gen X, and his score is 10-3.

Another possibility was mentioned by someone here, but I see no indication that she might run or has any support: Janet Napolitano, whose score is 18-6.

Jack Markell is governor of Delaware, a Joneser boomer. His score is 10-4. His Saturn return would come in 2019, so his chances would be doubtful in 2016.

Sometimes people mention Al Gore; born 1948 (Hillary's age), his score is 13-6. He has lost some popularity though.

Joe Manchin is 14-7; he's a year older than Hillary, and no-one has mentioned him except Flat58 here.

Donald Berwick is a candidate for governor of Massachusetts. He is Bill Clinton's age, and his score is 11-6.

John Hickenlooper is governor of Colorado. Born in 1952, his score is 18-13.

Elizabeth Warren, born 1949, is senator from Massachusetts, but says she's not running. 9-5

Jason Carter is running for Governor of Georgia. He is a late Gen Xer. His score is 12-8.

Tammy Baldwin is a lesbian senator from Wisconsin, recently elected; early Gen X/Jones. Given a Saturn return in 2021, she very likely could not be re-elected. 12-8

Brian Schweitzer was mentioned, but he declined to run for the Senate. Born in 1956, his score is 10-7.

Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, born Dec.1957, also has a 10-7 score. His Saturn return in 2016 precludes him from winning that year.

Joe Biden, vice-president, was born in 1942. He is not doing well in the polls. His score is 14-11.

Jan Schakowski, Illinois congresswoman, was mentioned by someone here. She was born in 1944, is on the left, and has a score of 11-9.


So there's a crop of dark horses, but so far they seem too dark to win. They are too old, too young, too new, lack name recognition, aren't running, and/or are too far left; or the Saturn Return indicates failure or not running in 2016.

Clinton also gave the opening night address at the 1988 Democratic National Convention, for which he was also notorious.

As Eric says, for 2016, most of the Democratic pool of candidates are either too old or too young, too inexperienced or with too much (unaddressed) baggage. Eric might think Blumenthal is cute, but if he runs his whole lying about serving in Vietnam thing would be a Swift Boat scandal times 1000.

Andrew Cuomo is looking solid, but I doubt he'll run if Hillary does. Her people have been making a big push over the last few years to mimic Obama's campaign apparatus while simultaneously locking down major endorsements and Democratic party donors. I doubt the same thing will happen to her again. Say what you will about her, she does do her homework.

This is just a very minor nitpick, but Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

This is just a very minor nitpick, but Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat.

Yes, but somehow he has said he plans to run in Democratic primaries, if he runs. He could also run as an independent, although that's not a challenge to Hillary.

If Hillary doesn't run, he may be the best dark horse candidate. My guess is that a few others may come out of the woodwork if she doesn't.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

As Eric says, for 2016, most of the Democratic pool of candidates are either too old or too young, too inexperienced or with too much (unaddressed) baggage. Eric might think Blumenthal is cute, but if he runs his whole lying about serving in Vietnam thing would be a Swift Boat scandal times 1000.

From the article,

"At a 2008 ceremony in front of the Veterans War Memorial Building in Shelton, he praised the audience for paying tribute to troops fighting abroad, noting that America had not always done so.

“I served during the Vietnam era,” he said. “I remember the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse.”

Mr. Blumenthal, 64, is known as a brilliant lawyer who likes to argue cases in court and uses language with power and precision. He is also savvy about the news media and attentive to how he is portrayed in the press.

But the way he speaks about his military service has led to confusion and frequent mischaracterizations of his biography in his home state newspapers."

I think this was an issue in his senate campaign. He seems to have the ability to dodge or smooth over his mistakes. His score would indicate this, as in the case of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

It is doubtful he would be a presidential candidate in 2016, and after then he may be too old to win anyway. But if it becomes a dark horse field, we might not know.

from wikipedia:

Richard Blumenthal (born February 13, 1946) is the senior United States Senator from Connecticut and a member of the Democratic Party. Previously, he served as Attorney General of Connecticut.

Born in Brooklyn, New York, Blumenthal is a graduate of Harvard College, where he was editorial chairman of The Harvard Crimson. He studied for a year at Trinity College, Cambridge in England before attending Yale Law School, where he was editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal. While at Yale, he was a classmate of future President Bill Clinton and future Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. From 1970 to 1976 Blumenthal served in the United States Marine Corps Reserve, where he earned the rank of sergeant.

After college Blumenthal served as administrative assistant and law clerk for several Washington figures. From 1977 to 1981 he was United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut. In the early 1980s he worked in private law practice, including serving as volunteer counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. He served in the Connecticut House of Representatives from 1984 to 1987, when he was elected to the Connecticut Senate. He was elected state Attorney General in 1990, and served for twenty years. During this period he was frequently speculated as a contender for Governor of Connecticut, but he never pursued the office.

Blumenthal announced his 2010 run for U.S. Senate after Democratic incumbent Chris Dodd announced his retirement. He faced professional wrestling magnate Linda McMahon in the general election, winning by a 12-point margin with 55 percent of the vote. On January 5, 2011 he was sworn in and took seats on the Senate Armed Services; Judiciary; Aging; and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committees.
(unquote)

Note on his 15-4 score: it's a good score, but since some of his positive points come from his Moon position, he could lose one or two points (probably just one) if he was born much before or after Noon, NY time.

In fact, strictly speaking, one of his unfavorable aspects is just beyond the orb I am using, so I revised his score to 15-3. This score is about getting elected btw, not governing. The same score allowed Dubya to make it into the White House twice despite all the accusations of cheating and despite starting a war by deceit.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, but somehow he has said he plans to run in Democratic primaries, if he runs. He could also run as an independent, although that's not a challenge to Hillary.

If Hillary doesn't run, he may be the best dark horse candidate. My guess is that a few others may come out of the woodwork if she doesn't.

Yeah, a Jewish socialist is gonna get elected POTUS in 2016 - or even 2116.

http://politics.suntimes.com/article...06112014-904am

Hillary Clinton's favorability in decline. Here's the real issue. People like the idea of Hillary, and they're quick to forget that she's a war hawk. They want to remember healthcare, healthcare healthcare, which is great, but there's more to being president than that. And when people see her add more than just someone trying to push a new healthcare initiative, she becomes fairly unlikable, which makes her unelectable for this office at this time.

It's kinda like the tough on crime positions. They got a lot of people back in the 70-90's era. Now even though nobody wants to say it in the press, those initiatives aren't really popular. People like the sound of them, until they really consider them. Gun control suffered from this effect. Marijuana legalization is also gaining on that. While the news media might be tailored towards later Silents and early Boomers, the people with the numbers for actual power are actually Millennials. I sincerely doubt that after 8 years, Millennials will go for Hillary. There's some stuff there that's worth supporting to them, but all the negatives, when considered, make her unwanted.

The longer she stays in the lime light, I think the less likely she is to be viable. The best thing a candidate can do is wait for maybe 2 other peyote to throw their hats in or throwing your hat in 6 months before the election, which ever comes last.

Originally Posted by Kepi

http://politics.suntimes.com/article...06112014-904am

Hillary Clinton's favorability in decline. Here's the real issue. People like the idea of Hillary, and they're quick to forget that she's a war hawk. They want to remember healthcare, healthcare healthcare, which is great, but there's more to being president than that. And when people see her add more than just someone trying to push a new healthcare initiative, she becomes fairly unlikable, which makes her unelectable for this office at this time.

It's kinda like the tough on crime positions. They got a lot of people back in the 70-90's era. Now even though nobody wants to say it in the press, those initiatives aren't really popular. People like the sound of them, until they really consider them. Gun control suffered from this effect. Marijuana legalization is also gaining on that. While the news media might be tailored towards later Silents and early Boomers, the people with the numbers for actual power are actually Millennials. I sincerely doubt that after 8 years, Millennials will go for Hillary. There's some stuff there that's worth supporting to them, but all the negatives, when considered, make her unwanted.

The longer she stays in the lime light, I think the less likely she is to be viable. The best thing a candidate can do is wait for maybe 2 other peyote to throw their hats in or throwing your hat in 6 months before the election, which ever comes last.

The classic mistake of framing the election as if it is a favorability decision as opposed to a choice.

Mid-terms come closer to a favorablity decision (i.e. people who don't like anybody, stay home), but that's pretty much a nonexistant in a Prez election ... particularly one that will be historic not only with a woman at the top of the ticket in the general but (hard to believe, but it is a certainty) the most expensive and most covered election by the media ever.

Also, given what the t-baggers are now going to drag us through (e.g. govt shutdowns, debt ceiling financial meltdown, endless Obamacare repeals, abortion/contraceptive bans, gay marriage overturning) in the next couple of years, the Dems could put up a 90 year old Jimmie Carter and turnout is still going to be unprecedentedly huge and result in a Dem win by a landslide. Hispanics alone are going to tear the GOP a new one.

Cantor got primaried. That matters a lot more than Hillary's prospects two years out.

We're looking at a new Congress that could make someone else more electable. Or, more likely, *not* electable.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Jim Webb and Martin O'Malley. And that's just from my neck of the woods.

Personally, I think Tim Kaine is the real dark horse here. He hasn't been out in front a whole lot, but he's been doing a lot as head of the DNC, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him their his hat in early 2015.

Webb has the problem of being another frustrated moderate Republican. He'd make a great Eisenhower, but that's not what is needed. I am not thrilled with the idea of Bill Clinton (another Eisenhower) being back in the White House, but Hillary is not Bill. All else being the same, I believe that a white woman elected president in 2016 following another Democrat would enact policy closer to what is needed than would a white man, simply because being female in American society gives one a different perspective than being male. Also a woman is more likely to put other women on her staff. This might increase the the probability that a suitable new paradigm could be identified so we can actually solve some of the many problems facing the country that are impossible to solve under the current paradigm.

Cantor has resigned as House Majority Leader.

Jim Webb seems more likely as a future SecDef, to me. If he has a political future at all.

Also, I would think that the legacy of Margaret Thatcher, Sheikh Hassina, and others would have disproved the notion of fundamentally different perspectives from female politicians by now. But hey, why not, right?

Of course, maybe Hillary's fundamental hawkishness might be just what it takes to disprove the notion once and for all. Or maybe not. Hope springs eternal.

I heard Jim Webb mentioned as a possible candidate on the media recently, so he's worth a look. Interestingly, he was born a few days before Richard Blumenthal, who gets such a good review from my cosmic system (15-3). His score is not quite as good as his; 14-8. It could be 14-6 if he was born more than a few hours after Noon (an unfavorable lunar aspect would not apply then). That's still a pretty good score, but remember he was only a one term senator, and is not very well known; he's older than Hillary, and not even as far left as she, so he's no alternative to her on those counts either. Strictly a dark horse possibility if she doesn't run, I would say. But he could possibly make a good run for it in that case, based on his score at least.

Both these guys were born at the time of my current minister; Webb on the same day, in fact. So I am familiar with the energies in their charts.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Webb has the problem of being another frustrated moderate Republican. He'd make a great Eisenhower, but that's not what is needed. I am not thrilled with the idea of Bill Clinton (another Eisenhower) being back in the White House, but Hillary is not Bill. All else being the same, I believe that a white woman elected president in 2016 following another Democrat would enact policy closer to what is needed than would a white man, simply because being female in American society gives one a different perspective than being male. Also a woman is more likely to put other women on her staff. This might increase the the probability that a suitable new paradigm could be identified so we can actually solve some of the many problems facing the country that are impossible to solve under the current paradigm.

Here we definitely disagree. Yes, having a woman POTUS will affect how governance happens, but will it affect it in a good way? We need a laser focus on long-term projects that will both create jobs and tighten the job market long enough to get us back above 2% inflation. The other focus is AGW. Neither of these are known interests of Hillary. If we were talking about Elizabeth Warren, I would feel differently. Hillary is more like the typical UMC liberal, who has interests in foreign affairs and social issues, but bread-and-butter ... not so much.