HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » 2016 Presidential Candida...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:57 AM

2016 Presidential Candidate Standards (Mine)

- Age: prefer 55 or younger
LOGIC: While experience is a good thing, this is a physically and mentally grueling job, and eight years of no sleep/extra stress is not something I want to hand over to someone who is social security (read: retirement) ready. I adore 70-year old Biden. Putting him in as President at 74 means he would be 82 at the end, and I am just not comfortable with that. With that said, my younger candidate had better have the support of trustworthy advisors of all age spectrums.

- Family: No immediate family of current or past Presidents.
LOGIC: I don't want a dynasty thing, with "name recognition" being the high point of the campaign. Tough noodles if a family didn't put their best candidate forward (sorry Jeb). How do I define immediate family? If you either celebrated a family holiday with a sitting president or brought your kids to the White House to celebrate a family event or had a regular room in the White House, that counts you as "immediate family" for this generation. I love Hillary, but she can't be President. (Sigh.)

- Experience: Public service in government required.
LOGIC: Making laws and understanding the impact isn't easy. Getting along with people you don't like and/or disagree with so you can get things done is important. If you weren't effective in lower offices, you don't get to the next one.

- Outside Experience: Preferred.
LOGIC: A well rounded background in both public and private sectors would be ideal.

- Wealth: Comfortable.
LOGIC: Someone who knows how to manage their personal finances and isn't able to be bought by the highest bidder is important to me. This person has to govern in the best interests of the WHOLE country, so worrying about footing their personal bills isn't a stress I want at the top of their priority list.

- Education: 4-year degree or higher with good grades.
LOGIC: Navigating the halls of higher education shows perseverance. One also assumes the person has been exposed to critical thinking/analysis and developed good study habits, all of which will be tested in this position. Creative problem solvers get bonus points; people skills are still required.

- Ethics/Morals: Honest and trustworthy.
LOGIC: Say it, mean it and do it. This applies to personal relationships, too. If you are in a committed monogamous relationship, I don't want to hear otherwise. If you and a spouse are into other things, I can be good with that. What I don't want is somebody subject to blackmail because their private and public lives are not in sync - and just because everyone knows you are two-timing scum doesn't mean you get to mouth platitudes about how everyone else should behave. (Ex: Newt is a serial cheater, and public about it. This would not qualify as "honest and trustworthy" because his spouses did not agree to these terms, so he has demonstrated bad character by saying what they wanted to hear to get what he wants, and thus is neither "honest" or "trustworthy".)

These are my starting points. I am confident other people may disagree with some of them. Anybody have any others?

I also fully acknowledge we have had Presidents both good and Bad who wouldn't have made it past my initial résumé check.

Times have changed; it is a tough economy out there, and I can afford to be picky. This is a tough, but rewarding job. Any thoughts on potential candidates?

28 replies, 1839 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 28 replies Author Time Post
Reply 2016 Presidential Candidate Standards (Mine) (Original post)
IdaBriggs Dec 2012 OP
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #1
IdaBriggs Dec 2012 #12
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #20
WooWooWoo Dec 2012 #2
IdaBriggs Dec 2012 #3
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #4
IdaBriggs Dec 2012 #6
sarcasmo Dec 2012 #15
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #5
IdaBriggs Dec 2012 #7
malexand Dec 2012 #8
IdaBriggs Dec 2012 #13
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #26
Agschmid Dec 2012 #19
craigmatic Dec 2012 #9
IdaBriggs Dec 2012 #11
craigmatic Dec 2012 #24
PennsylvaniaMatt Dec 2012 #10
IdaBriggs Dec 2012 #18
jimmy the one Dec 2012 #14
davidpdx Dec 2012 #16
IdaBriggs Dec 2012 #17
csziggy Dec 2012 #21
limpyhobbler Dec 2012 #22
BlueStater Dec 2012 #23
Fearless Dec 2012 #25
NoOneMan Dec 2012 #27
mr_liberal Dec 2012 #28

Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:11 AM

1. Kirsten Gillibrand

 

She fits all of your criteria, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:12 PM

12. Please share some info you think particularly impressive.

I don't want to "just google" - please "sell me" on her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:53 PM

20. Appointed to take Hillary Clinton's seat.

 

She won again in a special election in 2010 and then again for a full seat in 2012.

She worked as a defense attorney in a large corporate firm, defending big tobacco. Good experience in the law. Remember, attorneys must zealously defend their clients. It's an ethics requrirement. She defended big tobacco and did so very well. That's a mark fo a good attorney.

She;s wone statewide and receives high marks from the NRA, balancing a national effect.

I sincerely believeshe is the best positioned potential candidate to be the first Woman president. She is as well positioned for that first as Barack Obama was to be the first AA president, and I believed Barack Obama would be our first AA president after hearing him speak in Federal Plaza on October 2, 2002.

Kirsten Gillibrand will be the first woman US president after she defeats Jeb Bush on November 7. 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:30 AM

2. mine...

Can you win? Yes. Okay, good to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WooWooWoo (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:18 AM

3. I want someone to win who will do a good job in office.

I need them to be able to handle crises both foreign and domestic. I need them to be COMPETENT.

Junior won, and nearly destroyed the country. "Can you win?" Is NOT a good enough criteria for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:04 PM

4. I agree with everything except when it comes to the category,

"wealth." I would not want to have a president who was too much wealthier than the rest of us.

Either extreme would be detrimental in my view.

But other than that, especially age -- 55 or under because of the physical stress of the office, and not a member of a family from which someone has already served in the White House. We have had two close relatives in office: John Adams and John Quincy Adams and then George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.

In neither case, was the outcome that great for our country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:33 PM

6. I opted for "comfortable" but should probably

Be clear I don't want inherited wealth (because I want what my son calls a "worker"). Not too rich, not poor - rich enough to cover the bills "comfortably" but not so rich they don't understand/remember how most of the country does it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:24 PM

15. I think that was the biggest problem with Romney, after the lies. When you have enough

money to build car elevators there is a disconnect with the public. Look at McCain, he didn't know how many houses he owned. Kerry thought sailing was connecting with the average person. The super rich just have a hard time relating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:57 PM

5. Damn...

Except for the "honest and trustworthy" part, this describes me to a tee. Except that I might be lying about the other qualifications.

So there's that.


Edit: On the other hand, if you were looking for the perfect REPUBLICAN candidate, I'd be pretty much there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:34 PM

7. I do not qualify for the job using my own criteria.

I have no public service record, and our finances are not comfortable.

Sigh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:18 PM

8. Bernie Sanders!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malexand (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:15 PM

13. I love Bernie. Do you think he is too polarizing?

He is such a blunt speaker; it is one of the things I adore about him, but I am not sure he can be appropriately...diplomatic, especially when he has to deal with Stupidity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:20 PM

26. Sen. Sanders is already 71...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malexand (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:33 PM

19. I'm from VT, I've voted for him at least 3x's but he can't win national election. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:04 PM

9. That's all well and good but I'm just looking for a liberal with a ruthless streak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to craigmatic (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:11 PM

11. I need someone who can govern the whole country.

Ideological purists will be a tough sell. I want someone who knows where to draw the line, knows how to push back, and also understands how to make things palatable.

Long term political relationships do require the occasional face saving get along compromises.

(Do not take this to mean I want Obama to surrender anything at the moment - I also want the "jam it down their throats" moments so they APPRECIATE the occasional reasonable compromise; this only occurs with mutual respect, and we still have to establish that with the current crop of office holders!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:06 PM

24. I disagree we can continue to win with Obama's coalition and many people in that coalition want

someone further to the left. Liberals can govern the entire country especially if we take back the house and the senate then we won't have to compromise or make things palatable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:08 PM

10. My choice: Sherrod Brown - U.S. Senator from Ohio

He fits all of the above criteria - except for the fact that he will be 64 in 2016 - although I definitely think that he is not too old for the job. He is a liberal, but has proven that he can get elected in a swing state like Ohio twice. He also belongs to a demographic that has seen Democrat support dwindle in recent years - older whites, especially from rural states. He has also been in public service since his early 20s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PennsylvaniaMatt (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:10 PM

18. Hmmm. Public experience is legislative, not executive.

I think that caused Obama some early problems (may still be happening with his reluctance to use recess appointments).

Thoughts, please?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:22 PM

14. Exclusionaries

Can't really think of any qualifiers for president, & really just agree totally with your 4 year college degree requirement as prerequisite, add in one of the stiffer degrees, not art history (sorry medici fans).
But I can put in a few exclusionary traits to DISqualify potential candidates:

1. Devoutly religious; Separation of church & state, enuff said? let's not have a repeat of gwbush vetoing fed funding for embryonic stem cell research when public approval was 70% for fed funding.
1a. (sorta corollary to above) when polls (hate to say it this way) show public support at 55% or above for an issue, president should not veto; he has some leeway when his support is only at 45% - 50%, presidential prerogative. Obamacare is actually on the borderline here, just about at 45% approval (when considering just those with an opinion approve or disapprove), but this is a big exception, & approval will likely increase next 4 years, if not I stand by what I wrote & if house & senate vote ACA obamacare down, he should not veto it if he only has 45% or lower support.

2. personal, should not discount mm global warming, nor be anti environmentalist, nor pro oil driller, nor blatantly oppose gun control nor be an nra puppet (get a D+ or higher). I never could cotton onto harry reid because of this, shaking hands with nra vice president (for life) wayne lapierre & chumming up with him & I think shooting, god what pig lapierre is, his hatred for democrats makes me wonder at harry reid, sorta a walter mitty anyway. Hate to say this but the one tea party candidate, his opponent sharon angle in nevada, would've gotten a shoulder shrug by me if she'd beat him.
Oh I take it back! I take it back! I'm sorry I'm sorry!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:57 PM

16. Nice additions

I agree with them. The problem is who fits all of these criteria?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:08 PM

17. I have to agree with your two suggested additions -

So, in the interest of one line statements -

RELIGION - Moderate, not maniac.

And

SCIENCE - Believer.

With the "logic" portion stated reasonably by you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:07 PM

21. Alan Grayson!

Born in 1958. Worked his way through Harvard graduated summa cum laude. Has worked as an economist, has a law degree (magna cum laude ), and Masters of Public Policy (thesis on gerontology) worked as an attorney (representing whistleblowers), made his fortune as the first president of IDT. He might be too rich to be 'comfortable' - his net worth is over $30 million. Served two terms in the House of Representatives and was just re-elected.

He has a pretty impressive list of accomplishments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Grayson

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:23 PM

22. I'm more concerned with their policy positions rather than any personal qualities.

But they do need to be intelligent and confident, and able to resist being manipulated.

And also they should have a track record of fighting against big money and corporate power.

Even without much much experience, I think they will be able to call upon other trusted people with experience to help them.

Age does not bother me much either way. I certainly would not disqualify anybody based on age if they are fit for duty in other respects.

Anybody who promises to accelerate fossil fuel exports is automatically disqualified for me. Also anybody who wants to raise the Social Security retirement age, or the Medicare age should be automatically disqualified. Or anybody who supports privatizing schools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:33 PM

23. Age isn't a factor to me at all.

I would take a 70-year old Hillary as president in a nanosecond over fortysomething young Republican douchebags like Ryan and Rubio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStater (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:13 PM

25. Well hell I'd take a potato over either of those morons!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:32 PM

27. Lets just make sure they don't utter "Climate Change" in a debate

 

Acknowledging the worst problem of the 21st Century might make us look bad for doing nothing about it.

I want them to have nice teeth. Shiny. Not too bright though. Maybe two shades shy, as to not give off an air of pretentiousness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:27 PM

28. Im opposed to Hillary

because I wouldnt trust her supreme court choices. I think she's weak on the 1st Amendment.

So far I like Andrew Cuomo and Mark Warner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread