2016 Presidential Candiates Predictions

[Buckwheat]

how old will hilary be in 4 years?

69.

[homestarunner93]

I like Warren.

Pelosi would def. be a better example.

Hah, why?

[Buckwheat]

Hah, why?

I read her book "The Two Income Trap", to be honest It was a good read and I have nothing else to back up my opinion of her. Is she crazy?

[metsbulls1025]

If Hilary runs Bill and Barack will be all over the country helping her. There would be no way she loses.

[Fool]

If Hilary runs Bill and Barack will be all over the country helping her. There would be no way she loses.

that probably depends on what happens in the next four years.

[njolakoski]

My man Mitch! Current Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels for Republican Party in 2016.

I wish he would have ran this year, Romney would have stood no chance against him for the Republican nomination. Republican Party wanted Daniels as there nominee badly, much better option then Romney.

[Longhornfan1234]

Chris Christie is a traitor. He didn't have to slobber all over Obama's knob like a juicy steak every time ( two weeks ago)he was in front of the media.

[Longhornfan1234]

You really don't have a great track record in predictions. Might want to check your internal biases.

That was one election.

[flips333]

Chris Christie is a traitor. He didn't have to slobber all over Obama's knob like a juicy steak every time ( two weeks ago)he was in front of the media.

This is what is wrong with MOST politicians in general. If this is some sort of game where party means more than getting things done then sure this is brilliant. But if getting **** done is more important... and telling the truth about what is getting done than anyone with this attitude is treating the political system with the level of respect due a sporting event. And as much as I love sports, it's just ****ing silly.

[behindmydesk]

This is what is wrong with MOST politicians in general. If this is some sort of game where party means more than getting things done then sure this is brilliant. But if getting **** done is more important... and telling the truth about what is getting done than anyone with this attitude is treating the political system with the level of respect due a sporting event. And as much as I love sports, it's just ****ing silly.

I have no problem with what Christie did. I do think it helped Obama some, and Sandy helped Obama. But it was it is, and I highly doubt without Sandy he wouldn't have still won. Christie spoke honestly about the president. It's ok in my opinion

[flips333]

I have no problem with what Christie did. I do think it helped Obama some, and Sandy helped Obama. But it was it is, and I highly doubt without Sandy he wouldn't have still won. Christie spoke honestly about the president. It's ok in my opinion

That's my point. When it becomes wrong to just speak honestly because the truth isn't something that locks in step with the party line then we have a bigger problem.

[The Schmooze]

It's an interesting thought exercise, and it probably would be litigated since this is America, but in my opinion what I said would happen. On face, the text is pretty clear (like your link says). This always holds a significant amount of sway, but since it's the Supreme Court we're talking about we have to realize that they don't really feel obligated to follow the text or reasoning of anything if they don't want to.

The only real snag would be the fact that the 22nd Amendment says "elected more than twice." A strict reading would seem to indicate that a VP would not get into the White House via election but rather succession. However, I think the Supreme Court would take a broader understanding of "elected" since all VPs are elected as part of a ticket. Thus, the VP would be indirectly elected into the office of President. However, I don't think this is a bar on VP's being elected despite being ineligible to succeed since the 22nd Amendment says nothing about VP eligibility.

So there's my prediction for the logic, and the real reason I think that's the way it would go is because the Supreme Court avoids constitutional issues if a remedy can be fashioned in another way. This interpretation would be effectively splitting the baby - allowing the former President to serve in an office since there is no explicit bar on that while also disallowing his succession.

But that's just one guy's opinion. Guessing what the Supreme Court will do is like guessing what Gwyneth Paltrow will name her next kid.

Great post, and I absolutely agree with you

[b1e9a8r5s]

I have no problem with what Christie did. I do think it helped Obama some, and Sandy helped Obama. But it was it is, and I highly doubt without Sandy he wouldn't have still won. Christie spoke honestly about the president. It's ok in my opinion

This 100%. Since when is actually putting the people you govern ahead of politics a bad thing. I think the storm did help Obama, but there's not much you can do about that.

[Labgrownmangoat]

This 100%. Since when is actually putting the people you govern ahead of politics a bad thing. I think the storm did help Obama, but there's not much you can do about that.

You think some Republican primary voters would hold it against him?

[b1e9a8r5s]

You think some Republican primary voters would hold it against him?

I think it's possible. But the primaries aren't for 3 years. Right now, people are upset about the loss and Christie is, unjustly IMO, taking some heat. I think if people step back and look at it in a few years, there won't be as much animosity. And at the end of the day, the Republicans need someone who can win.