Patine Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 I plan to make a United States 2020 scenario in the future and am currently gathering thoughts and ideas. The poll has eight select candidates from my 2016 scenario. Tell me who you'd like to see as the 2020 incumbant. Add a veep if you like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yougo1000 Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 Sarah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dog Democrat Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 Andrew Cuomo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrestlingking235 Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 I'd love to see Feingold as a veep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dog Democrat Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Cuomo-Feingold would be interesting, but we could also go southern with Heath Shuler and Tom Perriello (He can be removed if he loses) or western with Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmericanDream Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 Heath Shuler and Tom Perriello are both far too conservative to make it to a national ticket and chances are they won't leave the House because of it too, because NC and VA Democrats tend to be more moderate than some places, but not THAT moderate. Feingold also wouldn't have a shot, because he pisses off his own party too much with his liberalism. I think more likely Veeps would people like Claire McCaskill or possibly even a hispanic like Bill Richardson depending on what he does after his term is up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmoon72 Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 Mark Warner is, I think, the most feasible candidate out of everyone there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abe Lincoln Posted May 28, 2010 Share Posted May 28, 2010 Sarah Palin would be the most fun as she's the most different of them all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EGaffney Posted May 28, 2010 Share Posted May 28, 2010 I voted Warner, because I think it gives you more leeway with the Republicans about how they react to 12 years in opposition to the President. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmoon72 Posted May 30, 2010 Share Posted May 30, 2010 Some additional reasoning I have for voting for Warner: By 2020, Hillary Clinton and Johnny Isakson would be quite old (73 and 76, respectively). I doubt Clinton will run for president ever again, given the 2008 results. Isakson has shown zero presidential ambition, is not very well-known outside Georgia, and probably wouldn't win nationwide. With 70% of Americans thinking Palin isn't qualified to be President, I doubt she'd ever win. I'm not even sure she'll run for office again. Deval Patrick is not doing terribly well as governor of Massachusetts, and while he could win re-election, it'll probably be close - not good for a presidential candidate. Michael Steele? Really? He couldn't even win statewide on his own in Maryland. Andrew Cuomo looks favored to win the New York governor's race, so he's a possibility - but given how the last two NY governors managed to sink their careers, it's anyone's guess as to whether Cuomo will even be in the spotlight by the time 2014 rolls around, much less 2016 or 2020. I went with Warner because he won as Attorney General, Governor and Senator, gave the keynote speech at the 2008 convention (much like Obama did in 2004, and Clinton in 1988), is independently wealthy and therefore able to self-finance, is a moderate from Virginia - a swing state, is enormously popular in the state of Virginia, has known presidential ambitions, and has participated in several high-profile statewide races without any huge scandals or embarrassing stories coming out about him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patine Posted May 31, 2010 Author Share Posted May 31, 2010 Some additional reasoning I have for voting for Warner: By 2020, Hillary Clinton and Johnny Isakson would be quite old (73 and 76, respectively). I doubt Clinton will run for president ever again, given the 2008 results. Isakson has shown zero presidential ambition, is not very well-known outside Georgia, and probably wouldn't win nationwide. With 70% of Americans thinking Palin isn't qualified to be President, I doubt she'd ever win. I'm not even sure she'll run for office again. Deval Patrick is not doing terribly well as governor of Massachusetts, and while he could win re-election, it'll probably be close - not good for a presidential candidate. Michael Steele? Really? He couldn't even win statewide on his own in Maryland. Andrew Cuomo looks favored to win the New York governor's race, so he's a possibility - but given how the last two NY governors managed to sink their careers, it's anyone's guess as to whether Cuomo will even be in the spotlight by the time 2014 rolls around, much less 2016 or 2020. I went with Warner because he won as Attorney General, Governor and Senator, gave the keynote speech at the 2008 convention (much like Obama did in 2004, and Clinton in 1988), is independently wealthy and therefore able to self-finance, is a moderate from Virginia - a swing state, is enormously popular in the state of Virginia, has known presidential ambitions, and has participated in several high-profile statewide races without any huge scandals or embarrassing stories coming out about him. Some very good points there. Though Cuomo has the most votes currently in this poll, you do have a convincing arguement for Warner. I dare say at this point it's definitely between Warner and Cuomo. Some more advice on a possible veep, as well as a likely line-up of GOP opponents (ones who are currently youngish but up-and-coming) would be appreciated. Although I won't tackle this seriously for a little bit now, I'm currently gathering ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EGaffney Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 VP: Maybe Cuomo. GOP: Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmoon72 Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 Some very good points there. Though Cuomo has the most votes currently in this poll, you do have a convincing arguement for Warner. I dare say at this point it's definitely between Warner and Cuomo. Some more advice on a possible veep, as well as a likely line-up of GOP opponents (ones who are currently youngish but up-and-coming) would be appreciated. Although I won't tackle this seriously for a little bit now, I'm currently gathering ideas. For VP, I'd also throw in Brian Schweitzer as a possibility. Since Cuomo is also a strong possibility, maybe have two scenarios - one with Warner and one with Cuomo. Also, my reasoning for not voting for Bobby Jindal as the incumbent president for 2020 is mostly because he's too conservative, has some odd religious baggage (exorcisms and the like) and I think this oil spill that is taking place right now is going to damage his credibility severely. However, I'm not opposed to choosing Jindal as a presidential candidate for the 2020 scenario. For my additional candidates, I chose a lot of people who look favored to win their respective races this year. Obviously some of them may still lose, but I included them with the assumption that they will win. Some other possible candidates: Republican Cathy McMorris Rodgers John Hoeven Mike Pence Jerry Moran Kelly Ayotte Mary Fallin Mike Pence Jeff Flake Dean Heller John Thune Democratic (challenging the incumbent) Alan Grayson Stephanie Herseth Sandlin Independent Charlie Crist (might also be a good Republican candidate - I've considered the possibility that he returns to the party if he wins and/or the Republicans become less friendly to the Tea Party movement) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahaadoxyz Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 To whoever suggested Chris Christie as a potential Republican candidate, I would just like to point out that he's currently sporting a nifty 63%/33% approval rating in New Jersey, except it's inverted, with the 63% disapproving. Not, to my mind, a promising start for a future Presidential contender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EGaffney Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 To whoever suggested Chris Christie as a potential Republican candidate, I would just like to point out that he's currently sporting a nifty 63%/33% approval rating in New Jersey, except it's inverted, with the 63% disapproving. Not, to my mind, a promising start for a future Presidential contender. OK, well that obviously rules him out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EGaffney Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 Sorry, I double-posted. Now that we have one fewer candidate, any ideas about replacements? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abe Lincoln Posted June 3, 2010 Share Posted June 3, 2010 Gary Johnson for the Republicans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dog Democrat Posted June 3, 2010 Share Posted June 3, 2010 Gary Johnson for the Republicans After Rand Paul, I think joe six-pack has had enough of the paleoconservative/paleolibertarian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abe Lincoln Posted June 3, 2010 Share Posted June 3, 2010 Conservative and Libertarian are two very different things Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dog Democrat Posted June 3, 2010 Share Posted June 3, 2010 Paleoconservative =/= Conservative Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abe Lincoln Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Paleoconservative =/= Conservative Paleoconservatism and Libertarianism also differ greatly on social issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahaadoxyz Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 That depends rather a great deal on whether we mean a international-style libertarian/classical liberal, the kind who really means it about being a libertarian proper, or a Ron Paul-type libertarian, who is willing to be things like pro-marijuana and a few other issues but not pro-choice or anything like that, or a Rand Paul/Sarah Palin-type "libertarian," who is basically a hard-right American conservative who doesn't want to call themselves that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dog Democrat Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 Ron Paul is more Paleolibertarian than libertarian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahaadoxyz Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 Ron Paul is more Paleolibertarian than libertarian. Paleolibertarian? That's one I haven't heard before! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abe Lincoln Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 I meant paleoconservative Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.