Printable View
Booker's probably the highest profile mayor in America outside of Bloomberg and Emanuel.Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonEvans
A former Rhodes Scholar and Stanford football player, Booker's an unmarried man who works around the clock for Newark--responding to complaints about stoplights being out and to putting out fires.
He's also got a pretty darn good working relationship with Gov. Christie.
I have family on all sides of the political spectrum who live in NJ. They all sing Booker's praises.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Corey
I wonder if Zuckerberg would be inclined, if Booker was to be interested, that is, to write another 8 or 9 figure check and pay for Booker's campaign via a SuperPac. Now that would make things very interesting, to say the least.
HRC will be the nominee in 2016 barring a health issue. A friend of mine spent some time almost 20 years ago at the Kennedy School of Government with the (now) Admiral that is her link to the Joint Chiefs. He is with her all the time and he is completely won over by her competence. She has done a great job at State and DOD pros have no issues with her.Quote:
Originally Posted by throatybeard
And you think that single fact will be determinative of the 2016 nomination race? Not only don't I think it will be the only issue, I don't think what the State and DOD pros think of her would even be close to the top of the list.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gordog
Where did you get this number? Voter turnout has never been less than 48% of the adult population in a presidential election. Last election it was about 57%. I wouldn't be surprised if it drops some but there is absolutely no chance it drops below 45%, let alone 25%, even if serious attempts at low turnout as a strategy are made.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gordog
(In the spirit of full disclosure, there's no data for the very early elections before 1824, but I don't think any of us would argue those are relevant anyway.)
I think he meant 51% majority * 49% of the population voting = 25% of the total population needed to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wander
Oops! My bad, good observation.Quote:
Originally Posted by snowdenscold
Just one point about HRC's age -- I'm pretty sure that she'll still be younger in 2016 than John McCain was when he ran in 2008.
Obviously, he didn't win and maybe his age had a small part in that. But he did get the nomination.
With Hilary, she'll still need to prove she's vital and entergetic, but other than that, I can't image age would be more than a minor factor.
PS Different situation with an incumbent President, but how old was Reagan in 1984?
No, I don't think it will be determinative, or even an 'issue' in most voters' conscious minds. What I think is that the Washington establishment will be solidly behind her. No one in the race on either side will have her credability. The money will flow and it will flow early. Unless there is a populist uprising, I don't think she can be effectively challenged for the nomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy
I may be wrong, but my recollection is that turnout numbers reflect 'eligable voters', which is less than the adult population. If half the people vote than you only need 25% +1 person to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wander
Booker appeared on Meet the Press Sunday 5/20 with comments about attacks on private equity and about attacks involving Jeremiah Wright.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Corey
Quote:
“[A]s far as that stuff, I have to say from a very personal level, I’m not about to sit here and indict private equity,” Booker said. “It’s just, to me, we’re getting to a ridiculous point in America. Especially, I know — I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people are investing in companies like Bain Capital. If you look at the totality of the record of Bain Capital, they’ve done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses. This, to me, I’m very uncomfortable with.”
...Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity. Stop attacking Jeremiah Wright. This stuff has got to stop because what it does is it undermines to me what this country should be focused on. It’s a distraction from the real issues
RR b. Feb 1911 = 73 y.o. in Nov 84Quote:
Originally Posted by Olympic Fan
JM b. Aug 1936 = 72 y.o. in Nov 08
HC b. Oct 1947 = 69 y.o. in Nov 16
And Bob Dole b. July 1923 = 73 y.o. in Nov 96.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reilly
Of course, Reagan was first elected in 1980, when he was not yet 70, which I think is the more relevant date.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reilly
sage
'BTW anyone see the article yesterday about increase in longevity, esp. among males. The one data point that stood out was that the male life expectancy in New York state had increased 13.6 years between 1989 and 2009'
off thread topic, I know, but still: wait, what? I haven't done the research to look into the claim, but the idea that the male life expectancy in New York State has gone up that much -- that's about 21% -- in a period of just 20 years -- that seems preposterous to me. It's a huge jump in life expectancy in a very, very short number of years.Quote:
Originally Posted by sagegrouse
Life expectancy and longevity are not really the same thing. All this report is saying is that they expect fewer males born in 2000 to die young than males born in 1988.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy
In other words, improvements in child mortality, decreased murder rate, decreased suicide rates, better access to health care... all these things increase life expectancy of a cohort. This does not mean that the effective upper limit on age has increased. I bet the life expectancy of 65 year olds from the same cohorts won't be dramatically different.
Here's a neat "political map" of the USA, where the states are sized based on their electoral vote count:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cry...ally-speaking/
The most relevant life expectancy calculation for evaluating the likelihood of an older person to perform a stressful, strenuous job for the next 4-8 years isn't life expectancy figures at birth, but rather ongoing life expectancy at the person's age. So, while life expectancy of the American male at birth may be 75+/- years, the life expectancy of a relatively fit, active, and healthy 70 year old American male is certainly more than 5 years. That was clearly the case for Reagan, McCain, Dole, and (substituting female for male) will likely be the case for HRC in 2016, should she choose to run.Quote:
Originally Posted by gus
Back to politics, age has been a subject of discussion for older presidential candidates, but we really haven't had a recent (let's say post WWII) presidential candidate yet who's individual life expectancy was a real issue. As a VP candidate, Chaney's cardiac issues probably made his life expectancy in office a bigger issue than Reagan's ever was, despite Chaney being significantly younger when he and Bush were running in 2002 than Reagan was in 1980.
As for HRC, hopefully age won't be an issue if she does run in 2016. I doubt, medically, it would be a legitimate one.
Dave "I said I'd avoid this topic and I obviously lied" Kay
Oops. I typed 2002 for Chaney, and obviously meant 2000.
Eisenhower was in pretty iffy condition during his second term. Cardiovascular, IIRC.