Five Reasons Hillary Won’t Be President in 2016

Hillary Clinton’s been unemployed for a little less than a week, and I’ve already read about a million articles anointing her the next President of the Unites States.  Here’s the thing though, she won’t be.  That’s not a slight against her personally (I supported her in 2008 – for the record).  The reasons she won’t have little to do with her and have even less to do with her politics.

There’s no questioning her credentials.  She would probably be one of the most qualified candidates to ever run, she’s tremendously popular (her favorability rating only trail, her beau, Bill and first lady Michelle Obama) and she’s a damn good politician, but none of that really matters.  Here’s five reason she won’t be the President in 2016.

She’s Old

This is very superficial  but very much a factor in Presidential elections.  In 2016, Hillary will be 69 years old, which would make her the second oldest non-incumbent President ever elected.  That’s twenty-two years older than Obama, fifteen years older than Bush 43, twenty-three years older than Bill and five years older than Bush 41 when they each, respectively, took office.  Ronald Reagan was the oldest President to be elected (also at 69), but while deemed a successful President, he was dogged by rumors about his age, his slipping mental health and eventually entered the beginning stages of Alzheimer’s in his second term (not a good precedent).

Next in Line

While being “next in line” seems like a good thing, it’s not, especially if you plan on running as a Democrat.  No “next in line” non-incumbent Democrat has won the presidency in the post FDR era.  Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and JFK, were all considered Washington “outsiders”, who all ran on the same idea.  Change.  Furthermore, experience is often an important indicator of who will not win as a Democratic Nominee.  Democratic “next in line” candidates with strong quantifications have a remarkably terrible record in national elections (see: Al Gore, Walter Mondale or Adlai Stevenson II).

Andrew Cuomo

As of this exact moment, Hillary’s number one threat for the Democratic spot on the ticket is Andrew Cuomo.  The New York Governor who formerly served in the original Clinton administration already has a Presidential buzz following him.  He’s a favorite among liberals, beating President Obama to the punch on same-sex marriage, gun control and tax reform.  He received positive national attention for his handling of Hurricane Sandy.  He’s younger than Hillary, he’s from a popular Democratic legacy (albeit not as popular as the Clinton legacy, but still) and would no doubt be organized and well funded for a Presidential campaign.

The Republicans – Christie, Rubio, Ryan, Bush, Jindel and Super Dark House Petraeus

There’s been a lot made about the changing demographics of America and “the death” of the Republican Party.  To borrow a phrase from Joe Biden, that’s all a bunch of malarkey.  The truth is presidential primaries are very much like NBA drafts.  Some years are full of duds, some years are filled with studs,  The last two Republican primaries have been very much of the dud variety, so much so, that Herman Cain was, for a moment, the front runner in 2012 and that Sarah Palin was second on the ticket in 2008.  That’s not good.  The 2016 crop of potential candidates have the potential to be extremely strong.  To be honest, I think it’s really only a two man race, but some other names have to be given some respect.  First off, Bobby Jindel aka “the Indian Kenneth the Page” won’t win, but is definitely emerging as a party leader.  Paul Ryan is a tea party favorite and a good campaigner, but will probably be sunk by his association with Mitt Romney.  Jeb Bush is also being bandied as a possible 2016er, and even though a Clinton-Bush grudge match would be highly entertaining, being the brother and son of two unpopular Presidents is not going to do him any favors.  That leaves two heavyweight candidates, Chris Christie and Marco Rubio.  Rubio is sort of the Republican version of Barack Obama, a young minority change candidate, who is a strong communicator and extremely likable.  Christie is sort of a William Taft candidate, considering he’ll probably need a customized bath tube in White House.  Also, it’s worth mentioning Gen. David Petraeus as a super dark horse, even though he says he has no political aspirations and he ended his career in controversy, he’d definitely be a force if he decided to run and, if the Clintons taught us anything, it’s infidelity is no deal breaker when it comes to politics.

Barack Obama

More often than not Presidential elections are a referendum on the last President’s popularity.  McCain was sunk by Dubya’s incompetence.  Gore was hurt by Bill’s inability to keep it in his pants.  Bush 41 was buoyed by the overwhelming popularity of Reagan.  The Nixon scandals torpedoed Ford in ’76.  The LBJ policy in Vietnam did nothing to help Huhphrey in ’68.  Basically, what I’m saying is Obama holds a major responsibility in getting Hillary (or any other Democrat) elected in 2016.  If he slips up in his second term, it could spell doom for a potential Hillary Presidency.

Debate Rant

The second Presidential Debate was yesterday and I don’t care what any FOX news correspondent says, Barack Obama whooped Mitt Romney.  There is only one way to describe Obama’s performance last night and that’s, straight up, Reagan-esque.

Anyway I don’t really want to talk about the candidates’ performances, What I really want to talk about is this faux outrage surrounding Candy Crowley fact checking during the debate.

You can catch what I’m talking about at the end of the video above, but basically what happened was Mitt Romney said something untrue, Barack Obama corrected him, the two then disagreed on the facts, then Candy Crowley told them the facts, simple.

This led to the right crying favoritism.

-Glenn Beck tweeted,  “Candy loves to police Romney!”

-Americans for Limited Government said, “Crowley’s behavior goes beyond despicable as it was a blatant attempt to influence the presidential election,”

-Rush Limbaugh said, “She committed an act of journalistic terror or malpractice last night. If there were any journalist standards, what she did last night would have been the equivalent of blowing up her career like a suicide bomber.”

[Side Note: This is just more proof that Reps know there guy lost the debate last night, so they’re trying to discredit the moderator.  To be fair, Dems did the same thing to poor Jim Lehrer after the first debate.] 

Anyway back to the point at hand,  why is politics the ONLY forum where a person can blatantly lie and not be held responsible?

Here’s a bold idea, how about we embrace this whole “fact checker” thing?

Here’s an even more bold idea, when someone bullshits, YOU CALL BULLSHIT!

This is not “journalistic malpractice?”  This is journalistic integrity.  Journalists have a responsibility to inform the public.  Not sit idly by while someone slanders an American President.  Of course this faux outrage is only because it reiterates the reality that Romney plays fast and loose with the facts.  Something, Romney pollster, Neil Newhouse has already confirmed when he made it clear, “we are not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.”

Now of course Mitt is not alone in having some fun at the expense of facts, Obama, like any politician, does his fair share of manipulating the truth (you can read here each sides’ misstatements) but my point is, why shouldn’t there be fact checkers at the debate?  I know the news media will tell you it’s too difficult to fact check in real time, but to steal a phrase from Joe Biden, that’s a bunch of malarkey.  Mitt Romney’s been running for president for SIX years, Barack Obama has been President for four.  Each of these guys have answered these debate questions in some form or another a million times, so it shouldn’t be too difficult to figure out what talking points each candidate will trot out.

Here’s my overall point.  If you have fact checkers at the debate each candidate will understand that they HAVE to be honest or risk being called a liar on national TV.  That’s how you make each candidate responsible for what they say.

In closing, I think we should have Will McAvoy moderate the next debates.

Rant Ended.

VP Debate: The Analysis

Last night was a busy TV day, between  new episodes of 30 Rock and The League, there was also Yankee playoff baseball and Thursday Night Football, but none of that  could compare to the most entertaining thing on TV last night.

The Vice Presidential Debate.  Well to be more specific Joe Biden’s facial expressions during the Vice Presidential Debate.

Because, I’m your go to political analyst (or at least I should be).  I broke down Joe’s best facial expressions and what was going on in his head.

Mitt Romney: They Don’t Deserve Cake


This morning I saw this video posted on Twitter.

“There are 47% of people…who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing.”  ENTITLED TO FOOD!!!???!! FOOD!??!  Yes, there’s 47% of people who believe they are entitled to food and THEY SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO FOOD!  FOOD!  ENTITLED TO FOOD!  IT’S FOOD!!  PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO EAT!  HOW DOES SOMEONE WHO’S RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT SAY THAT?!?   This has to be Mitt Romney’s Marie Antoinette “let them eat cake” moment.  Except, of course, Marie Antoinette thought THEY SHOULD EAT!  For the last month Mitt Romney has combated claims he’s out of touch, that he lacks compassion, that he may well be a Bond villain.  Well, there goes that. This makes Barack Obama’s “You didn’t build that” quip look like -well- nothing more than an out of context quip.

I turned on MSNBC ready to see a  public lynching.  Ready to see Mitt hung by his feet, Mussolini style.  Ready for a loop of, ‘they think they’re entitled to food,” over and over and over again.  Instead, I get a wonky look at the tax policy.  WHAT?!?!?  The bastion of liberal media saw that video and said, “Let’s throw a bunch of pie charts and line graphs and the American people to show them, how the rich also receive entitlements, how mostly the elderly (who happen to vote Republican) don’t pay income taxes.”  MSNBC, you realize Mitt Romney, a man who’s running for President of the United States of America, just intimated that poor people are not entitled to FOOD.  FOOD!  Let me say that again.  FOOD!!!

Oh MSNBC why can’t you be more like Fox News.  You do realize Fox News is still running with “You didn’t build that,” even though they KNOW it’s out of context?  MSNBC get YOUR SHIT TOGETHER!  This is the election right here. The Deceleration of Independence says, “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,”  while it’s not directly in there, I’m pretty sure FOOD plays a part in that.

Now you’re showing maps MSNBC?  WHAT ARE YOU DOING!?!  You’re over thinking this one.  YOU’RE DROPPING THE BALL!!  Someone in Obama’s campaign PLEASE call these guys.  Get off the tax issue.  THIS IS NOT A TAX ISSUE!!  THIS IS A MORALITY ISSUE!!  THIS IS A RIGHT TO EAT ISSUE!!  You’re letting him off the hook and Fox is LOVING this.  They’re calling it “class welfare.”  They’re calling it “tax reform.”  They’re calling Obama’s America “a welfare state.”

Now you’re back on Paul Ryan lying about his marathon time.  NO ONE CARES ABOUT PAUL RYAN’S MARATHON TIME!!! Get to the fact that Mitt Romney just said people are not ENTITLED TO FOOD!!!!

Someone call Bill Clinton please!!!  I need Bill Clinton.  They’re sweeping this under the rug.  Bill Clinton, WHERE ARE YOU??

Ugh, so frustrating, (facepalm).