According to CNN, Hillary Clinton will throw her hat in the ring (is anybody surprised?) with a video announcement on Sunday:
Hillary Clinton is planning to launch her presidential candidacy on Sunday through a video message on social media, a person close to her campaign-in-waiting tells CNN, followed immediately by traveling to early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire to start making her case to voters.
The trip to Iowa, where a third-place finish in 2008 ultimately led to the collapse of her presidential aspirations, illustrates what aides say is a commitment to not take anything for granted in her second bid for the White House, even though she dominates the likely Democratic field in 2016.
Clinton has already filmed her campaign video, a person close to the campaign said, which outlines the central themes of her second bid for the White House. The message is intended to send a signal to Democrats that she intends to aggressively fight for the party’s presidential nomination.
A new epilogue of her book, “Hard Choices,” an excerpt of which was released Friday to the Huffington Post, offers a glimpse into why she is embarking on another presidential campaign. She writes about her new granddaughter, Charlotte, and calls for equal opportunity for her generation.
No Republican can field a candidate, at least right now, that can challenge her. Nor is there a credible challenger in her own party. I’m not a huge fan of Clinton, and although I think it’s time that we had a woman president in this country, I’d much rather it be Elizabeth Warren than Hillary Clinton. And indeed, Warren has been making the tiniest of noises that she may challenge Clinton. I’d favor that, for while I’d hold my nose and vote for Hillary over any Republican on this planet, I’d vote eagerly and gladly for Warren.
Sadly, I think that Warren could be too easily written off by the electorate as a “Massachusetts liberal,” something that would also doom John Kerry, another person I’d like to see in the running. (Kerry, of course, could also be branded as a “loser” for his defeat in the 2004 Presidential campaign, though I don’t see why a single loss is so damning.)
Frankly, I have little confidence that Clinton would be a good President, given her penchant for secrecy, her ties with the wealthy, her failure so far to articulate any vision that I respect, and—not her fault—the fact that she’ll face a Republican Congress. But is this the best the Democratic party can do?
It’s difficult for me to get excited about Hillary.
I think Jeb is the republicans party’s best hope, and has a real chance provided he can appear moderate. I agree it’s about time we had a women president and I’d much prefer Warren as well.
The vast majority of US voting is predetermined because people will vote for their party’s candidate regardless of who it is. Around 40% of the voting population will vote GOP regardless of who their candidate is and regardless of how well/poorly qualified they are. Around 35% of the voting population will vote Dem, again regardless of candidate quality. The election will then be decided by the 25% who are willing to actually change their vote on occasion…and of that 35%, probably the voters in only a few states will decide. In states where one party has a lock on a majority of congressional districts, their electoral college votes are already locked in.
What’s the point of me saying all this? Well, its to say that any GOP challenger to Hilary should be considered a serious challenger. Do not underestimate the chances of a candidate simply because you think is kooky/unqualified. In the general election, the GOP candidate will be pretty much guaranteed to get at least 40% of the popular vote merely for having the (R) show up next to their name. They do not have to convince 51% of the population to vote for them to win; they only have to convince about 10% (i.e., a little under half of the undecided).
It is further “determined” by having huge segments of the population not vote – either by choice, or because they are convicted felons (in many places), etc.
I am sure that if either Clinton or Warren were president, the republicans would try to block everything, just as they have been doing for Obama. I really like Warren, but I think she has a lower chance of being elected than Clinton.
This next election is critical for the future, as it is likely that the next president will appoint a replacement for Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Scalia, Kennedy, and Breyer are all in their late 70s, so it is possible that one or more of them will also leave the court.
In terms of getting out the vote, I can think of no better message for Democrats than to remind people, often, that Scalia will have to be replaced by someone, someday.
It’s a sad state of affairs that so many of us would prefer Warren but realize that she’s probably unelectable. Any politician who actually takes a moral stand on issues has little chance of winning. It’s too easy for the opposition to smear her and would require people to make personal sacrifices.
I agree.
What do we mean by “unelectable”? I think that there’s basically no way Warren could beat Clinton in the primaries, so she’s unelectable in the sense that she won’t be the nominee.
But if Clinton had decided not to run, Warren would be a perfectly credible candidate. Quite a strong candidate, I think. While she’s less likely to beat any likely Republican opponent that Clinton, it’s not like she wouldn’t have a chance. There’s no one in the Republican field of likely candidates who Warren couldn’t beat.
I am not so sure. I would like that to be the case. But it seems likely to me that a candidate as liberal, as decent and motivated, as Warren would be a huge stimulus for the apparently very sizable crowd that is conditioned to scorn anything remotely resembling *socialism*.
Americans are programmed to see socialism and communism as the same thing, and to see socialism as anti-capitalist. (It’s not – even the WSJ has described NZ’s economy as a “rock star”.) And fifty percent of the population is less intelligent than the average person, so it’ll take more than one election cycle to change their minds. If you want a Democratic president, you have to find someone who the centrists will vote for, and currently that’s Clinton. That could change of course.
Well, for one thing, she’s really not that liberal. We’re not talking about Bernie Sanders here. For another thing, it’s a meaningless charge because they apply it to everyone. They said Obama was liberal. They said Kerry was liberal. They said Gore was liberal. Since the Dem nominee will be attacked as liberal regardless, they might as well nominate a liberal for a change.
But really, my bottom line is that the electoral system simply doesn’t have a lot of leeway. The GOP will win the red states, the Dems will win the blue states, and the swing states will fall as they may. Would Warren have a tougher time in states like Ohio, Florida and Wisconsin than Clinton? Almost certainly. But she’d be competitive in all of those states, and she wouldn’t lose any solid blue states. She’s as electable as anybody.
Sanders is unelectable.
Yep, human primates are one collective piece of work.
I happen to agree with everything on your post and there is really not much to add.
Going forward into prediction land, as long as a couple of things are accomplished I really don’t see the republicans having much chance. Those couple of things need to be that Hillary does not do something crazy to lose it and that the Democrats and Women really get out the vote. The only other hope would be that the republicans screw up so much as to lose one or both houses of congress. Certainly they must lose the senate if a democratic president is to get anything done.
We pretty much live in a Plutocracy now, so unless you can get someone like Warren in there we have no hope.
RE Plutocracy:
“[in a new paper] Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University … use statistical analysis to work out who most influences policy [in the US], and the results are depressing for those who believe in democracy. The authors conclude that “Not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions: they have little or no independent influence on policy at all.” Those with the biggest influence are the economic elites (defined as those in the top 10% by earning power) and interest groups representing business. By contrast, “mass-based” interest groups such as trade unions have little or no impact.
… The research does not necessarily show that the average voter is losing out; as it happens, the views of the wealthy and those on average earnings are closely linked (although there is a negative correlation between the views of citizens and business-interest groups).
… the analysis backs up earlier work by Larry Bartels of Princeton, author of a book called “Unequal Democracy”, and the general thesis of the late political scientist, Mancur Olson, that government can be in hock to special interests. This may be truer in America than elsewhere since its campaign-finance laws are so liberal: $6 billion was spent on the 2012 elections. This system forces candidates to spend much of their time raising money from the wealthy and from business. Even if no direct quid pro quos are involved, candidates may simply absorb the views of the better-off by osmosis.”
From:
Buttonwood: One dollar, one vote: When it comes to setting policy, the views of businesses and the rich seem to count for more. Economist, May 17 2014
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21602250-when-it-comes-setting-policy-views-businesses-and-rich-seem-count
the paper by Gilens & Page is here:
http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
So even if Warren were elected she would be unable to change the system.
I can’t get excited about Hillary Clinton either. Just the thought of Hillary Clinton versus Jeb Bush makes me seriously consider supporting an anti-dynasty law for presidential candidates. The more I think about it, the more it seems reasonable. Dynasties seem to breed both mediocrity and epic levels of corruption. Just look at G.W Bush for example. Consider countless examples overseas.
In the U.K, members of the royal family aren’t allowed to run for political office, as I understand it. In the U.S, presidents or former presidents are near-royalty, and allowing someone from the same family to return to the same office their close relative once held concentrates too much power in one family.
I know, I’m thinking out loud, but Hillary alone is disturbing enough; Hillary Clinton versus Jeb Bush is outrageous in a country of over 300 million people claiming to be a “democracy”.
Regardless of my political point of view, holding my nose will not be enough to stop me from getting sick from listening to a person who has always had a questionable if not completely false explanation for every suspicious problem she’s been involved in. Has she ever accepted responsibility for anything that has ever gone wrong? Too many times I’ve had to watch her look directly into the camera and tell what looked like a lie. Even the mildest example I can think of, when she said that as First Lady she had landed at airports while hostile forces “strafed the runway “, is still a lie and a similar lie has gotten Brian Williams banished from reporting the news. Her more serious dubious statements started before her husband became president. Whitewater alone would have disqualified most other candidates. I too think it’s time we had a woman president, but I wont ever vote for Hillary Clinton, but it doesn’t matter since she’ll easily win my state of Connecticut.
There is a great difference between Clinton and Williams even if you do not see it. Clinton is no different from any number of politicians we could be referring to. They all lie – some more than others. Williams was a Journalist, a highly paid anchor at that. Making up stuff in that career is certain death, as it should be.
Sorry, I know many people think “they all lie”, but I have to take each of them as they present themselves. Why bother paying any attention if you think they all lie? And even if they do all lie, Hillary is a special kind of liar. I doubt she ever heard a true statement that couldn’t be improved with a lie. I’m sure there is a vast difference between Hillary and Williams. Perhaps I will give her the meager support I can after I find out more.
From across the big pond, I have wanted for a couple of years to see Elizabeth Warren as president, but, even if she decides to run, the chances of someone so straightforward avoiding the pitfalls of the USA election process seem remote.
i guess i am old school where Republican meant the first term Ronald Reagan (not the memory affected “weekend at bernies” second term Ronald Reagan)
He did cut taxes and made it easy for new business to start etc etc (“Mr Gorbechev, tear down this wall” and the wall did come down).
but i cannot and i wont vote for the Current repbulican party of right wing relgious wing nuts who talk about womans reproductive organs being connected to the stomach/colon, and “ovaries shutting down during “Rape”——)when i hear these white haired,Neandertal Republican congressman discuss God telling them what to do and keeping woman barefoot and pregnant, I get sick to my stomach/uterus.
I cannot vote Republican and contribute to a Theocracy that started with POPE George BUSH (“i read the Bible every morning and ask Jesus how to vote on that spending bill” the same george bush who saw VLADIMIR PUTIN’s “SOUL” WHEN HE LOOKED deeply INTO Putin’s EYES AT THAT SUMMIT”)
we can only hope that hillary clinton keeps the third Bush out of the white house, and we have pretty much the same as the last 8 years with the impass of obama/republican congress.(GRIDLOCK)
under obama and Republican congress we have had low unemployment, the highest stock market ever, the housing market is improving etc etc
THINGS ACTUALLY GET BETTER ON THEIR OWN IF THE GOVERNMENT DOES BASICALLY NOTHING AND LEAVE THE ECONOMY TO GOOD OLD “ADAM SMITHS INVISIBLE HAND” (NOT GODS HAND OF COURSE, AS GOD IS MAKE BELIEVE).
Look at the distribution of income in the US since Ronnie. Starting in 1981, everyone flat-lined (or went down, for the bottom half of the population) except the top 20% and especially the top 5% and really, really, really except for the top 1% or 0.1%.
So, yeah, if you are at the top, the “trickle down” economics is great stuff.
Um, well, not sure where you’ve been living but our recent history doesn’t match your description of it.
The nation as a whole still does not have “low unemployment”, not by historical standards. And it certainly hasn’t been considered “low” in any way until the last couple of years. Millions are still underemployed or are stuck in poorly-paying jobs.
If the congress and President G. W. bush had not acted decisively in late 2008, we’d be in the 7th year of the 2nd Great Depression right now. There was, literally, no one else in the world to turn to get credit flowing again.
If the US had “done nothing” the world economy would have collapsed in a way never before seen in modern times. Credit was effectively completely frozen. We missed it by a whisker as it was. Remember when the US economy was “shedding jobs” as they liked to say, at rates over 500,000 per month?
The Fed actions over the last 7 years and Quantitative Easing? Not exactly “doing nothing”.
Things rarely ever get better on their own.
The reason the stock market is so high is because interest rates are currently manipulated to be artificially extremely low in an attempt to encourage investment. If you have money, the only way to make more is via investment at the moment. However, because demand is also low because average incomes remain low, the only place to invest is the stock market. The stock market is artificially high.
Business has plenty of cash reserves available for investment, but again, isn’t investing in job creating projects because demand remains low. This is why in these situations governments need to spend to create demand, such as by providing benefits to the unemployed – the unemployed spend that money, creating demand, therefore creating jobs. Employers do not create jobs out of the goodness of their hearts, they do it if there is an economic benefit in doing so.
Government intervention is essential in stimulating a stagnant economy. This is also why a balanced budget amendment is a stupid idea, and anyone calling for one displays a complete lack of understanding of economics. Government economics don’t work the same as personal economics.
The market is also artificially high because corporations have been buying back their own stock. That makes stock options more valuable as well.
True.
Even personal economics don’t always have to have a balanced budget, otherwise no one would ever take out a mortgage or a student loan.
Or borrow money to start a business. You’d think plutocrats would remember that, but …
Not to forget that downturns in unemployment include those who stopped looking for work, and those who, after being laid off from their business or factory job, eventually gave up looking in their niche and took a job as a night custodian.
Not only are the stock markets at record highs but so are the bond markets. Interest rates that are almost zero have that effect.
“Employers do not create jobs out of the goodness of their hearts, they do it if there is an economic benefit in doing so.”
Gets me to contemplating what motivations (love of country, goodness of ones heart), what benefits, economic or otherwise, are sufficient to prompt one to join the military to go in harm’s way on behalf of, among other things, employers’ economic interests.
Unfortunately, money is the main drive of any modern American campaign. Without multi-millions, there can be no campaign. Since Warren (rightly) wants to break up the monolithic banking structure and regulate Wall St. she won’t get the “big money” that Clinton or a Republican will receive; so she would be at a huge disadvantage from the outset. Obama was still viable because of his grass-roots movement that raised so much money, but that was pre-Citizens United. With that catastrophic SCOTUS decision, someone like Warren or anyone who relies heavily on grass-roots money doesn’t stand a chance.
If anything though, it would be great if Warren did enter the race (or Bernie Sanders) just to heighten the debate and make Clinton answer some tough questions that so far she has eluded.
Ah Bernie Sanders – I’d love to see him enter the race too (and for the same reason you).
Oops, “and for the same reason you cite”
I saw Bernie Sanders on The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore this week. Larry asked Bernie if he will run – Bernie said he is seriously considering it.
I really hope he does so he’ll force Hillary to be a progressive in order to clinch the democratic nomination rather than her centrist self.
I honestly think Bernie would be a decent president – but I also think that he knows he is extremely unlikely to win the democratic nomination. I think he’ll run precisely to push Hillary to be a better democrat.
Given that Hilary Clinton is the most likely Democratic presidential candidate for 2016, another aspect to the discussion could be her possible choices for a VP running mate. I’d favor Julian Castro, former mayor of San Antonio and current Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. I hope the Democrats at a national level won’t continue to ignore Hispanic voters, who are a majority in many large southwestern cities. My county was a spot of blue within a sea of red, during the 2008 and 2012 elections – there needs to be at least a river of blue through this state, but if Hispanic voters are disregarded again, it won’t happen.
Castro would be a good choice in my opinion.
Ditto.
I thought Castro was a Republican. Am I mistaken?
No, he’s a Democrat – considered a rising star in the party. He gave the keynote address at the DNC in 2012.
I don’t know much about this guy, but can you imagine what the anti-Cuba lobby would say about the guy’s name?
Definitely, the VP question is interesting. Seeing how unlikely it is that Warren could be a viable presidential candidate herself, I think she would make an excellent VP for HC. After battling HC in the primaries, HC wins but then asks Warren to be her VP.
Surprise, surprise, a Clinton-Bush race!
I’m not really enthusiastic about Hillary; however: She would be enormously preferable to any GOP alternative (Rand Paul anyone? … er … wait a moment while I vomit — I just ate lunch).
It’s past time we had a woman president.
My politics are better aligned with Elizabeth Warren too; but Hillary is more likely to prevail in a national election in my opinion.
Winning isn’t everything; but in this case it’s especially vital: The Supreme Court. I’d love to see Kennedy replaced with a more consistently liberal justice. And Ginsburg is not in good health and she’s a real trooper for “our side”.
Winning isn’t everything — but losing is absolutely nothing.
“But is this the best the Democratic party can do?”
It is fairly astonishing that out of 318 million people we seem only to be able to find viable candidates from two families (I think Jeb Bush is the only even theoretically electable Republican on the radar). It’s amazing how power accrues so capriciously to the few.
Some Americans seem pretty hung up on the idea that The President should supply them with a vision. You guys need a good chief executive and could do a lot worse than Clinton.
We could do worse, true – but we should be able to do better….you might think
So, what? We shouldn’t bother even thinking about, let alone trying, for someone better?
You can think about it all you want, but in the end the reality will be all you’ll get to vote for.
Ohhh, thank you! You are so wise. I can’t thank you enough for helping me see things so clearly.
RE PCC writing:
“No Republican can field a candidate, at least right now, that can challenge her.”
Paul Krugman: Economics and Elections. New York Times, April 6 2015
Excerpt:
“[a large body of political science research] debunks almost all the horse-race narratives beloved by political pundits — never mind who wins the news cycle, or who appeals to the supposed concerns of independent voters. What mainly matters is income growth immediately before the election. And I mean immediately: We’re talking about something less than a year, maybe less than half a year.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/opinion/paul-krugman-economics-and-elections.html
Larry Bartels: Obama Toes the [Regression] Line. Jan 8 2013
http://themonkeycage.org/2013/01/08/obama-toes-the-line/
author is Co-Director of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions and Shayne Chair in Public Policy and Social Science at Vanderbilt University (formerly full professor at Princeton University, 1999-2011)
One of the top experts on this topic, political economist Douglas Hibbs (Professor of Government Harvard University, 1978-1985)
http://www.douglas-hibbs.com/
http://www.douglas-hibbs.com/HibbsArticles/hibbs_downloadable.htm
Completely correct imo. If people feel good economically in the lead up to actually voting, enough will vote for the incumbents for them to retain power.
The only caveat I’d have is the screwed up American electoral system, which needs serious reform, and can result in someone winning the popular vote but not the election.
Our electoral college system is indeed strange, but an argument to keep it is that without it presidents would only have to campaign for the interests of heavily populated regions of the country. These would mainly be the coastal states and especially in the big cities. The large inland states, with their lower populations, would be less of a priority and would scarcely warrant a visit except in close elections.
But with the electoral college system a candidate must campaign to the entire country b/c those big empty states do add up in their electoral college votes. I am not sure if this is a good argument, but, hey, we are here to discuss things.
I see your point though, considering the chronic Congressional gridlock where every congressional vote is crucial, it seems a President, of whatever party, would need all the support he could get from representatives and senators from those less populated large inland states, and that they’d surely make it clear to candidates that that support would not be forthcoming were their states’ concerns/interests ignored/dismissed in the campaign.
Wikpedia has a rather exhaustive entry. Factoids: if I read it correctly, 22% of the national popular vote, and/or approx. 1/5 of the states, can theoretically result in a victory, over the other 78% of voters and 80% of the states. This does not exactly reek of vaunted U.S. democratic “values.”
Perhaps all elections should be “electoral” – governors, senators and representatives win by counties. (And as far as that goes why not also by county for the President?) Same for sheriffs by civil districts, mayors by precincts, Mr. and Ms. High School by homeroom, eh? 😉
How many voters know they’re voting for “electors,” not directly for the President, and understand the system? Why even have flesh-and-blood electors? Why not simply say that the popular vote results in X number of electoral votes? Is one reason for the Electoral College’s existence because those who “run the country” were and are unable or unwilling to trust “hoi polloi” with a direct vote? (Don’t recall seeing this addressed in the Wiki article.)
Gabriel Lenz: Why The Recent Economy Matters
http://today.yougov.com/news/2012/06/01/why-recent-economy-matters/
why voters care so much about the election-year economy. According to numerous studies, voters mostly ignore economic booms or busts in the first three years of terms and judge the president and his party on the election-year economy. In fact, they are primarily influenced by growth only in the six months before Election Day. Voters appear not to be answering Reagan’s question, “are you better off than you were four years ago?” Instead, they are answering the question, “are you better off than you were six months ago?”
Voters’ perceptions of the economy during a president’s term, we find, are unduly influenced by the end. Voters want to judge the president on the entire term, not just the election year, but evaluating the term economy isn’t easy for voters. Government agencies and the media rarely report on, say, cumulative income growth during the term, and voters don’t keep track themselves. When voters try to evaluate the term, they substitute the end for the whole without realizing it.
Gabriel Lenz: What Americans Don’t Know About The Economy
http://today.yougov.com/news/2012/08/14/what-americans-dont-know-about-economy/
I asked participants on a recent YouGov poll about three aspects US economic history. The results reveal considerable ignorance …
I asked about recessions. They are a normal part of the economy—the boom and bust cycle has occurred with regularity for 200 years. I wondered whether citizens understood this regularity. Instead of seeing recessions as a normal part of the business cycle, I had a hunch they would see them as rare events. So, I asked about the number of recessions the US experienced in the last 50 years. To a degree, their responses confirmed my hunch. The actual number of recessions the US has experienced in the last 50 years is about eight: one in 1960s, two in the 1970s, two in the 1980s, one in the 1990s, and two in the 2000s. However, about 70% answered between zero and five, and 26% picked between zero and two. Only about 20% chose the correct range, which was 6 to 10. This misperception may help us understand why voters throw out incumbent presidents during downturns. When the economy happens to experience a downturn in an election year—as it did in 1980 and 2008—they see it as an unusual event with ominous implications, not realizing that recessions regularly occur. As a result, they may more often vote against the incumbent party.
For the record, a very good friend of mine predicted the Democratic VP nominee and I think he is right: Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia.
Kaine is Catholic but pro-choice. From Virginia, a battleground state. A former governor. Has a penis. Fluent in Spanish. From Virginia, a battleground state. A seasoned campaigner. And finally, he is from Virginia, a battleground state.
One reason to think that Kerry is a loser is that he lost to a man who had amply demonstrated that he was a complete disaster. When arguing with Republicans about how idiotic they are, my standard comment at the time was that they might have been forgiven for having voted for Bush in 2000, but to have voted for him in 2004 – after his horrendous performance in office – that proved you were a complete imbecile. And yet Kerry lost.
Sadly some of things Warren says aren’t terribly radical. The other day she gave an interview and talked about raising the minimum wage and lowering college loan rates, all nice things but small potatoes compared to what we should really be about, not real inspiring stuff. How about single payer, eliminating corporate welfare and limiting money in politics, free college tuition for a set period of time at state colleges, carbon tax with revenue to fund science research, just to come up with a few “big ideas” off the top of my head. Instead democrats usually play small ball, they aren’t quite as extreme as the right wing, but won’t really buck the status quo money structure. That’s why a lot of progressives are turned off by democrats, we ask for hope and change, but at the end of the day just hope we have a little change left over once the bills are paid. I realize this is a Catch 22 since millionaires and billionaires largely buy elections these days.
Thank you for opening up the forum to a political discussion. The best person to be placed in the White House in 2017 is Senator Bernie Sanders. The next best candidate is Senator Elizabeth Warren. The third place goes to the former governor of Maryland. No Republican should be trusted with the Presidency and that includes Bush’s brother, also called Bush! (Hillary does not deserve the position!)
Hatred of science, infatuation with merciless capitalism and little regard for the study of history are all factors in an early termination of humanity.
All the best to those who think and vote!
John J. Fitzgerald
I am very suspicious of Hillary Clinton. She keeps company with some very sleazy people.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-hillary-clintons-religion-and-politics?page=1
Happily in my state it won’t matter if I leave that office blank.
Never abstain, dude — write in a candidate you can feel good and clean about voting for, even if that candidate is fictional.
I’ve written in Clinton Tyree aka “Skink”, the fictional former Florida governor from Carl Hiaasen’s novels, when I couldn’t bring myself to vote for either gubernatorial candidate on the ballot — though I was a bit conflicted about it, since I wasn’t sure that Skink, as a former two-time election winner and resignee from that office, would still be qualified to serve. (I don’t mind voting for a fictional character, but I draw the line at a fictional character who’s technically ineligible to hold office, though that’s my own legalistic idiosyncrasy.)
Regarding fictional candidates and the presidential Electoral College, for what “elector” is one voting?
What disqualifies Kerry is the god-awful, damfool campaign he ran in ’04 — making militarism the theme at the convention, and running away from his post-Service antiwar activism, the most honorable (albeit, in keeping with the Kerry brand, still self-promoting) thing he’d ever done.
If it’s Hil, I’ll smear a gob of Vicks Vapo on my upper lip, head into the booth, and pull her lever against any foreseeable GOP candidate.
Kerry, like Gore before him, should have beat Dubya like a [Trigger Warning: gingers & the maloccluded] redheaded, bucktoothed stepchild — exposing him as the faux-cowboy, stupid-rich frat boy that he’s always been, a guy who gets beaned because he can’t get out of the way of an inside pitch, then a sacrifice bunt and a balk later, is posing at third-base like he lined a triple off the centerfield wall.
How many presidents have been honest, intelligent, and candid? Warren seems to be all three, but I don’t think such a person can win in America.