Since Warren has zero chances in the general, I'm supporting Hillary.

I find americans suspicion of atheists very strange. I feel pretty confident that we'll see an open non-believer winning the nomination of one of the two major parties before 2030. Infact, in my area of the world, being openly religious is more of a problem for a candidate than the opposite.

I actually think the gay one could be survivable and even a galvanizing moment in some ways, providing the candidate was single. I can't think of any Republicans who would hypothetically fit the bill, though. If the candidate is married or recently divorced, though, game over. It makes him look like a liar and hypocrite. Same if he's been historically anti-gay.

Atheist has the biggest range of responses, I think. If the candidate is just honest that he moved away from religion and no longer identifies as a believer, but remains credibly conservative, I think they could survive. It would be like Arnold Vinick, only with a more progressive country. But if they come off in any way as an anti-theist, they're done.

I can't see any way that a "secret Muslim" GOP nominee wins a single state.

Pretty much agree with this.

Infact, it would be strange if there aren't several closet gays and atheist politicians out there - especially the latter, I suspect. Closet muslims? Doubt it.

In this day and age it really would be sad if not believing in god(s) disqualifies one from the presidency, unless of course said person was a huge hypocrite.

Is there a big reason for the DPP strength?

The main reason is the meltdown of the social democrats. All the people disappointed with the governments fairly righht wing economic policies have got to go somewhere. A lot of people are going to the Red Green Alliance, but there are a lot of people who won't move that fa to the left. So they move to the right instead, probably figuring that the economic policies will be similar but with stricter immigration policies. DPP, being the opportunist that they are, have tried to position themselves to the left of the government on economic issues and they are being rewarded for this. However, the DPP will still support a Venstre government and will likely support that governments economic policies almost regardless of what they are like. Economic issues are not their primary concern - immigration is.

I don't see it. Age has to be an issue. As I have stated elsewhere, the general trend in international politics is to elect younger politicians to the highest offices. Infact, this really happens even in America - at least since after Bush senior. In Denmark, a politician is basically considered over the hill when they reach 60. I'm not saying it's absolutely going to be the same way in America, but I have a hard time seeing someone in their mid 70's winning a presidential election (that is not a re-election). Infact, I think even Hillary might be hindered by age despite being younger than Biden and a woman (who usually live longer).

I think people are underestimating the deep polarization of the current electorate. Even with someone as strong as Clinton facing someone as terrible as Palin, I don't see Palin getting less than 40% and still winning a majority of the McCain states. But obviously Clinton wins, I'm not arguing that.

As much as I'd personally like Warren for president, she has about as much chance as Santorum. She loses  if the GOP nominates someone sane. Surely the dems must know this.

["finding some way to deal with reality"]

"finding some way to deal with reality"

That is really what the GOP needs to do NOW on a whole range of issues. The "war on reality" has gone on for far too long.

Let's not all be dense. Huntsman is not talking about adopting objectivism. He is talking about adopting libertarian social attitudes- live and let be. This is something people shouldn't be finding objectionable. Talking about tolerating gay marriage, marijuana legalisation, et cetera. Repealing DOMA. He's talking sense, as usual. There's no need to twist his words.

That's not libertarianism. It's liberalism.

In the case of those types of issues, what is the difference?

No way in hell.

In all fairness, Biden will be 74 in 2016. That's reason enough that people aren't mentioning him. I love Joe Biden, but I wouldn't mention him either. He's not a realistic pick, IMO.

Rasmussen - Sunday, December 16, 2012:

57-42 approve

34% strongly approve, 33% strongly disapprove

Today is the first time the president’s Approval Index has been in positive territory since June 29, 2009.

Amazing!

Clinton 25%
Cuomo 15%
Sweitzer 10%
Someone else 50%

Christie 20%
Rubio 17%
Huckabee 10%
Someone else 53%

As someone eluded to earlier, if secularism was the issue then we would see prisons disproportionately filled with atheists (while in turn it is exactly the opposite) and godless Europe would have at least a similar crime rate than America (when in fact it isn't even close; America is completely off the spectrum when it comes to--in particular--gun violence in the industrial world.)

The connection between the easy accessibility of guns and the prevalence of gun related violence is a debate we can have. You may feel like the connection is tenuous or nonexistent, but at least it is something we can have a debate about.

However the connection between secularism and the increase in gun violence is demonstrably false and so easily empirically refutable (as has been proven many times) that even engaging in the debate seems pointless, and easily lends itself to the suspicions that those whom desperately argue for the link have some sort of ulterior motive--and I think ulterior motive has been made increasingly clear.


They want to use this tragedy to push their agenda of bringing religion in to the schools. Therefore they are the true shameless opportunists here.

Thank you. This thread was in bad need of an injection of IQ and you provided it. Some the stuff being written here frankly belongs in the 16th century.

The Famly Ties values and Reagan? Ehhhh what?

I love Joe Biden, but really, he's gonna be too old. I even think that Hillary might be too old and she's both much younger and a woman.

Lovely. My opinion of him just went up.

It would be really interesting to see how Appalacia and the deep south votes if it is Clinton/Schweitzer against Rubio/Martinez or Rubio/Jindal. I'm sure a hell of a lot of voters in those areas are just gonna stay home. I'm confident that Clinton/Schweitzer would still clean up the black vote, but the hispanic vote might be close.

The thing is that this could easily turn into a positive for Christie. All he really needs to do is shed a bit of the weight. He doesn't need to get in super shape, just make a noticible difference. Having a positive news story about ones personal health will only strengthen his candidacy.

Not sure if the gay marriage thing changes anything. It could be viewed as:

1) Falling in line with what by 2016 will be deemed a necessity to win the Dem nominiation, hence signalling that she's running.

2) Her being liberated from the pressures of political campaigns, to finally just say what she really feels (and has probably felt for decades), hence signalling that she is unlikely to run.

I'm not sure if one interpretation holds any more weight than the other.

I'm gonna say one third chance she runs, two thirds chance she doesn't, so in the 30-40% bracket.

It's a bit strange, that throughout the last months of the campaign Obama was polling better in Ohio than he was nationally. Infact, his strong polling in Ohio was one of the main reasons why so many remained fairly confident of an Obama win even when he was trailing in the national polls.

Yet, Obama ended up doing significantly better nationally than in Ohio...

Or rather: The Ohio state polls were pretty much correct, while the national polls were generally way off.

I am surprised so many people voted for Cuomo. How is he going to make it out of the primary? The Democratic base would vote against him every time. What is his path to victory? Is there enough open primaries for him to get a sufficiently strong early lead before the Liberal vote unites behind an "anti-Cuomo". I don't see it happening.

I don't see it that way. If anything the republican base usually seems more insistent that their party picks an ideological candidate, and they STILL went with McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012. I really don't see why the dems wouldn't pick a centrist.

Anyway, Biden is just too old. Election day 2016 will be just a couple of weeks before his 74th birthday. Yes, he's healthy. Yes, he looks younger than he is. Yes, I really really like him and would love for him to be president. But 74 is 74. The trend in the western world has been towards electing younger leaders. We can't continue to make the case that Reagan won twice in the 80's. Hell, I even think Hillary Clinton is starting to get too old - 2016 would definitely be her last chance.

I agree with whoever said that Schweitzer has got more the vibe of a democratic Huckabee who should have his own TV show. I think Schweitzer would make a fine VP choice for someone like Clinton or Cuomo, but I don't really see him as top-of-the-ticket material.

So basically, I'm picking Cuomo for now. Clinton, if she runs, which I don't think she will.

Oh dear.

Whatever happened to weeding out the crazies?

He forgot election reform (aside from getting money out of politics). Otherwise I agree with most of it.