The Field in 2016 - Democrats

[rabidTU]

OK folks its the silly season of Presidential Politics and speaking of silly, some of the democratic candidates appear to be that. Now just leave out Hillary and visualize the possible field wo her in it. E Warren has stated she won't get in, so that leaves a possible void at the top to challenge Ms Clinton. But I think there are two who are ready to challenge her - Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden.

Now most people believe history repeats itself and I mostly agree too, but let me throw this out for a moment. Hillary will be 69 years old if/when elected. The two candidates I mentioned above are older than her - Sanders is 73 and Biden is 72. Add two years to that number if elected and what have you got?

Now back to history. In another super power country, two leaders were selected back to back who rivaled those two gentlemen in age. Can anyone remember who they were? Well, the country was the Soviet Union and the two leaders were Yuri Andropov (age 70) who died 8 months later and his successor was Konstantin Chernenko (age 73) who died 13 months after that. So in the span of 21 short months, the USSR had three leaders - two of which died in office.

Just a thought some of you might want to ponder.

 

[2PoorTUFans]

Are you suggesting that after Hillary's 2 terms are up, that Diamond Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders is going to be president? I just fail to see how back to back election results matters at all here, given that we are only talking about one election and Hillary is roughly as old as God in President form himself, Ronald Reagan, was at the time of his inauguration.

 

[rabidTU]

Just a history lesson. Go ahead and use Reagan all you want. And thanks for doing that.

There is a huge difference between Reagan running against a failure like Jimmy Carter seeking a second term and Hillary trying to run against a field of "others" in both parties. There is no incumbent, therefore the field has to be judged for what it is. (So any democrat has to be judged within the circumstances of the political conditions that exist at this time.) Thats as clear as I can make it. For instance if you want to give Hillary credence for being a woman and voting for her because of that, you also have to judge her age and whether she's capable of performing the job because of that age. Reagan was judged by the voters to have the ability to perform his job, but at the time it was an issue that was discussed. Alls well that ends well.

 

[rabidTU]

Just a history lesson. Go ahead and use Reagan all you want. And thanks for doing that!

Reagan was running against a failed President (Carter) and won because the voters judged he was a better option. Hillary will be running against the field at first in her own party, then against a maze of Republican candidates who will probably not have the age issue used against them. Reagan overcame the age issue because he was a better candidate and proved to be a much better executive. Hillary has to do as Reagan did and show the voters it isn't a problem. But IMO she needs a younger candidate from her own party to prove herself or she's in big trouble.

 

[rabidTU]

A little more about the democratic field is who the strongest candidates are that might run if the party is desperate. The only ones who i can think of that might even remotely challenge Hillary are:

John Kerry - present age 71 would be 73 at election/inauguration
Al Gore - age 67 would be 69
Elizabeth Warren - age 65 would be 67

So would there be a gender gap between them and the republican field? I think if the Republicans are smart, they'll run a younger candidate. IMO

 

[rabidTU]

For comparison purposes, contrast the Democrat field with the likely Republican frontrunners. There is a huge group of Repulbicans so I eliminated several I think won't be the nominee. Add two years to their age which would equal their age when they take the oath of office - if they were to win.

Cruz - 45
Paul - 52
Rubio - 43
J Bush - 62
Christy - 52
Walker - 47

 

[rabidTU]

Almost forgot. Had John McCain won in 2008 and been reelected in 2012, he would have reached the age of 80 when his second term would have ended in 2016. And Romney is currently 68. If he'd won in 2012 and reelected in 2016, his age would be 74 at the end of that second term. Does age matter?

 

[rabidTU]

One more thing to ponder is that in the entire history of our country, only two presidents left office over the age of 70 - Eisenhower and Reagan. Both those presidents were two termers and Hillary (and of course Biden and Sanders) would reach that age (or have already reached it) in their first term as Reagan had. Does age matter?

 

[rabidTU]

?Congratulations to Dr Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina for enterring the race for the WH. We now have one democratic woman (Hillary) and one Republican woman from each party enterred. We also have one Republican African American black and two latino Repubublicans. But i guess i missed the black and latino Democrats running. Maybe WATU or some of our other liberal friends could fill us in on who those candidates are.?