[AgentR11]

Well, it would have to be someone who doesn't hate Obama, as any that stepped forward would have no doubt in their minds that they were insuring an Obama win.

I don't think either of those three would go there. My bet is that they'd rather coerce concessions from Romney this time around.

[Fishman]

Nope pstarr, not going to happen. As per Rumsfeld, you fight the war with the army you have, not with the one you wish you had. Hey, what's your view of women chosing to stay home for their family, slackards like the Dems state, or perhaps a different view?

[Pops]

So what would a candidate look like that could actually appeal to the middle 60% and leave the 20% on either end to stomp their feet and pout?

[vtsnowedin]

So what would a candidate look like that could actually appeal to the middle 60% and leave the 20% on either end to stomp their feet and pout?

Sadly nobody pops into my head.
Someone that is peak oil aware and has some ideas about how to manage the decent down the backside of the curve,
Someone that can do basic math and knows it is best to pay the bills as you go along and not hope or plan on a windfall to bail us out in the future,
Someone that has been in a fight or two and has come out a winner.
Someone that understands the middle class and has a clue about what is the best course to take to give the majority a chance at survival. ( I think prosperity is now out of the question.)
Still not coming up with anyone. ??? How about you?

[AgentR11]

The person you are looking for, is the one you guys failed to nominate for whatever reason.

Hillary Clinton.

[Lore]

The person you are looking for, is the one you guys failed to nominate for whatever reason.

Hillary Clinton.

Enough of this pension to resurrect some sort of a dynasty here in the US. We seem to have this deep-seated longing to reestablish a monarchy in which the ghosts of rulers that we remember and liked can somehow be squeezed out of the genes of their immediate family.

[AgentR11]

I note that you aren't suggesting an alternative...

[Cog]

There is no candidate that can appeal to the war-mongering Republicans, and the give-me-my-free-shit army in the Democratic party simultaneously.

[Lore]

George Clooney, he's smart, a good actor, lord knows its been a few election cycles since we had an actor and he certainly is a better one then the last one was. As good a qualification as most of these other jackanapes have.

This maybe sarcasm, but I'd bet putting anyone with a good ethical foundation as leader could do just as good, if not a better job, then our last several pretenders to the throne have done.

[Outcast_Searcher]

There is no candidate that can appeal to the war-mongering Republicans, and the give-me-my-free-shit army in the Democratic party simultaneously.

+1

Absolutely right. What surprises me in the U.S. is that the idea of a coalition government never seems to get any traction. Given how diverse (and divisive and intransigent) the various voting blocs are getting to be -- this idea would seem to have at least SOME merit.

For example, I am a libertarian. At least, in a true coalition government, I (and my fellow roughly 1% voting bloc) might actually get SOME representation from like minded officials. But no -- instead we get Dems or Repubs, which, with the rare exception like Clinton in his second term -- don't tend to represent the center too well.

[Outcast_Searcher]

This maybe sachasm, but I'd bet putting anyone with a good ethical foundation as leader could do just as good, if not a better job, then our last several pretenders to the throne have done.

Perhaps, but IMO, and with respect -- recent history doesn't stack up too well here.

I would say Jimmy Carter, as far as being a fine, moral, upstanding human being, outshines all recent presidents by a long way. And yet, his presidency was a fiasco. (His leadership style of micro-management and slow decision making certainly didn't help).

I'm all for ethics. I believe the core problem with America is declining ethical values. And yet -- for our leader who needs to make decisions about economics and war -- ethics may not be the best core principle -- sadly enough.

[Pops]

LOL snowedin!

You really think Hillary? The Third Way.
I didn't vote for her because I thought she would only invite the right to go on another 8 year hissy-fit. In fact I almost voted for McCain because I thought the way-right wasn't ready for a half-white president either.

Guess it didn't matter.

The centrists would at least manage BAU better. It would still be BAU but at least not the herk-jerky, left then right scizo disfunction we have now.

[Pops]

There is no candidate that can appeal to the war-mongering Republicans, and the give-me-my-free-shit army in the Democratic party simultaneously.

Yeah, that's kind of the point, ignore the hard right and hard left that decides primaries, ensures gridlock and little else.

Put up a candidate who alienates both the left and right by not demagoguing their bs just to get on the ticket then shakes the slate and acts moderate in the general.

[Sixstrings]

Enough of this pension to resurrect some sort of a dynasty here in the US. We seem to have this deep-seated longing to reestablish a monarchy in which the ghosts of rulers that we remember and liked can somehow be squeezed out of the genes of their immediate family.

Yeah if Hillary had one that would have been rather odd.. Bush - Clinton - Clinton - Bush - Bush - Clinton

At least with the Clintons they're not really about a "dynasty," no sons and Chelsea has no interest. The Bush's though.. they fancy the idea of dynasty.. Jeb will be running one day, probably in 2016. Then they've got another Bush lined up for after him.

As for royalty.. Americans do like a "daddy figure" for president. We seem to swing back in forth, the Republicans are the daddy figures but then we rebel now and then and elect a Democrat. Romney just looks like a president, he's right out of central casting for a movie. But yet, whenever he speaks -- just listen to him sometime -- it's all NONSENSE *the man literally has nothing to say*. He looks the part, but doesn't measure up oratorically.

Obama, on the other hand, isn't too "presidential" but is very intelligent. Looking back now, I actually think Hillary would have been good as well. Much of the foreign policy success of this administration is thanks to Hillary. She'll be a bit old in 2016; she's already looking rough. I'll probably vote for her though. It's time for a woman and Hillary is the best qualified.

What we really need from Democrats, and just don't get any more, is very strong principled leadership. This is why "daddy figure" voters go Republican. It doesn't have to be that way though -- think of FDR, it's possible for a liberal to be tough as nails and charismatic and regal. During his presidency, FDR was LOVED by the working class so much it was common for folks to have the president's picture up in their home. Republicans hated him with passion.. called him a "traitor to his class." Republicans wanted the poor and old to starve in the streets. Republicans have always been against anything for the working man, that has never changed and never will.

Best of all worlds is somebody like a Teddy Roosevelt. A Republican, yet pro-American mercantilist -- he was a reformer, known as the "trust buster" (monopolies). Tough as nails, military guy, above all PRO AMERICA. That kind of leader is impossible now, we're a globalist paradigm now and there really is no "America" just global finance and the interests of the monied elite.

Lastly Reagan.. he seemed like a great president at the time and for a while after.. but since becoming "aware" on so many issues, I really see how it was Reagan who set this country down the wrong path and a lot of people are poor and well get poorer because of his ideas. Globalism, Reaganomics, deficit spending, free trade deals. I don't want to bother googling the graphs, just trust me though wage growth has been a flat line ever since Reagan. That's no accident.

So that's the conundrum with the daddy figures -- they really ain't your daddy, they don't give a damn about you, the "daddy figure" Republican candidates are more akin to the CEO of the company you work at. They DO NOT GIVE A DAMN about you, they will lay you off cut your benefits, take away your healthcare, fire you on the spot, their interests are not your interests.

Mitt Romney can try to trinagualte and flip-flop and be weird and making bizarre jokes and outright lie all he likes -- I won't fall for it, I'm voting Obama. And the SCOTUS is important, I must keep voting Dem no matter what this Republican supreme court has been bad we can't let it go further to the right. The whole difference between Obama and Romney boils down to whose taxes go up, the poor and working class or the super rich. That's the big difference, folks. Vote accordingly.

The country is safe in Obama's hands, he got OBL for Christ's sake what more do you want, we're out of Iraq we'll be out of Iran soon there's no darn reason to vote Romney unless you're wealthy and want lower taxes and more money printing -- that's exactly what Romney will do, that's the Bush doctrine, super low taxes on the rich then print money to fund the government. At least Obama is being responsible and wants to raise taxes on the super rich.

[Lore]

This maybe sachasm, but I'd bet putting anyone with a good ethical foundation as leader could do just as good, if not a better job, then our last several pretenders to the throne have done.

Perhaps, but IMO, and with respect -- recent history doesn't stack up too well here.

I would say Jimmy Carter, as far as being a fine, moral, upstanding human being, outshines all recent presidents by a long way. And yet, his presidency was a fiasco. (His leadership style of micro-management and slow decision making certainly didn't help).

I'm all for ethics. I believe the core problem with America is declining ethical values. And yet -- for our leader who needs to make decisions about economics and war -- ethics may not be the best core principle -- sadly enough.

I agree, but I believe with regards to Jimmy Carter, it says more about ourselves then it does him. He was arguably one of the most intelligent and grounded Presidents we ever had in the last century. Most of his concerns about our future are profectically coming true. Of course, most Americans are adverse to facts and truth where it upsets their comfort level. We would rather believe in actors, preachers and salesmen telling us what we want to hear.

[Sixstrings]

He was arguably one of the most intelligent and grounded Presidents we ever had in the last century. Most of his concerns about our future are profectically coming true. Of course, most Americans are adverse to facts and truth where it upsets their comfort level. We would rather believe in actors, preachers and salesmen telling us what we want to hear.

You make good points about Carter. But you're forgetting this was the Cold War, and he was dangerously weak. The Iran hostage crisis was a never-ending nightmare his whole presidency. He was a principled and good man, but sometimes you need a tough guy who can get sh*t done whatever it takes.

Carter couldn't even get along with his own party, and lost support of the Democratic Congress. That's a massive fail at executive leadership, however principled a man he may have been you're not a leader if nobody is following you.

Reagan was the opposite of Carter, he was a VERY strong leader and the best good he did for the world was to speed up the end of the Cold War. But domestically, Reagan's policies ruined the working classes for generations. It's too bad how you can't seem to get both, a good liberal on domestic policy but strong on foreign policy too.

[Sixstrings]

More on topic with this thread..

If you want a third party candidate to vote for, you may want to have a look at the Americans Elect group. It's an online peoples' primary. A non-partisan primary, whoever wins it will be on all the ballots.

Buddy Roemer is leading and looks like he'll be the Reform Party and Americans Elect candidate. It's a throwaway vote, but if you're just looking for a good man to vote for then Roemer is it. He has a lot of good things to say about getting money out of politics. He's a Republican, but seems non-partisan. He's on the Rachel Maddow show now and then and they agree on everything they talk about. Sounds like a Republican I could vote for.

I'm still voting Obama, but Roemer is my second choice. Here's the website if you want to participate in the caucus:

http://www.americanselect.org/

[Lore]

He was arguably one of the most intelligent and grounded Presidents we ever had in the last century. Most of his concerns about our future are profectically coming true. Of course, most Americans are adverse to facts and truth where it upsets their comfort level. We would rather believe in actors, preachers and salesmen telling us what we want to hear.

You make good points about Carter. But you're forgetting this was the Cold War, and he was dangerously weak. The Iran hostage crisis was a never-ending nightmare his whole presidency. He was a principled and good man, but sometimes you need a tough guy who can get sh*t done whatever it takes.

Carter couldn't even get along with his own party, and lost support of the Democratic Congress. That's a massive fail at executive leadership, however principled a man he may have been you're not a leader if nobody is following you.

Reagan was the opposite of Carter, he was a VERY strong leader and the best good he did for the world was to speed up the end of the Cold War. But domestically, Reagan's policies ruined the working classes for generations. It's too bad how you can't seem to get both, a good liberal on domestic policy but strong on foreign policy too.

You're giving the exact reasons why he was a great and principled man. Reagen was strong because he fed into the Zeitgeist of his party, as actors are trained to do. So, would you rather have a faker or the real deal?