So far, the first half of April has been busy, as expected, since it is the beginning of the new fundraising quarter. It also looks like May and June will contain some presidential announcements as well. The Hill compiled a list of the remaining candidates which I have organized below.

Here are the details on the rest of the 2016 field, from both parties, who have yet to officially announce, lifted from this article:

-April 2015-
Bernie Sanders – Will decide by end of April

-May 2015-
Ben Carson – May 4, 2015
Carly Fiorina – May 4, 2015
Mike Huckabee – May 5, 2015
Martin O’Malley – Late May

-June 2015-
Scott Walker – June, after Wisconsin legislative session
Rick Perry – Late spring, probably June
Bobby Jindal – June, after Louisiana legislative session

-Summer-
Joe Biden – Will decide over the Summer

-No set time frame-
Rick Santorum – Sometime in late Spring
Jeb Bush – Next few months
Chris Christie – No given time
Lindsey Graham – No given time
Jim Webb – No given time
Lincoln Chafee – No given time

There are a lot of candidates without a time frame which isn’t too surprising. I think many of them are trying to slow the process down or have prior responsibilities to which they must attend. The governors, in particular, are walking a fine balancing act between their current duties and spending time on the campaign trail.

22 COMMENTS

  1. Well, it is pretty early to be making such a decision; especially considering that the election is nineteen or twenty months away. The only thing that makes this even marginally potentially interesting is the upcoming moron-a-thon.

    We’ll see if it’s as entertaining as the last one, or if it will simply grow increasingly painful. Let’s hope the ‘oops’ moment doesn’t arrive too soon. It could be a bit anticlimactic.

    The Democrats could be interesting as well.

    • Dude. Cop out.

      With everybody down to dog catchers running for president this year, if you still wouldn’t vote for ANY of the Republicans, you really can’t call yourself a Republican.

      • Sure I can. Just find me one who even vaguely conforms to the party’s founding principles of fiscal and social responsibility.

        Good luck with that. I ain’t holdin’ m’breath.

          • I don’t think it’s about not voting. I think Progressive Republican is just putting us on.

            RrogRep: If you don’t like any Republican at all, not even enough to pick a “least evil,” how about going back to Nate’s original question in this thread, rephrased:

            IF an “ideal” candidate existed, specifically, what attributes would that candidate exhibit? What issues would he/she espouse?

            We’re thinking you’re just BSing.

          • Sorry the response delay, but the netbook I have to work on is more than merely vaguely flaky.

            Conservative humorist P.J. O’Rourke pointed out that, “The Democrats are the party of government activism, the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller, and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work, and then get elected and prove it.”

            Hmmm…

            Social responsibility is an ethical framework which suggests that an entity, whether an organization or individual, has an obligation to act for the benefit of society at large; not just a select few. This is something even conservatives from the Nixon administration have come to realize and mentioned more than once.

            Those who tend to pass for (or pass themselves off as) conservatives today have been shown to clearly favor the wealthy minority over the significantly less wealthy majority.

            I fail to see how this can be anyone’s definition of ‘social responsibility’ without completely ignoring the aforementioned vast majority of Americans whom the policies have demonstrably damaged.

            But then, I don’t see this as fiscally responsible either.

            All of the Republicans that have either officially or even talked about throwing their hats into the ring have said for the record that their fiscal policies include increasing military spending, decreasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations, and gutting Medicare and other social and medical programs that most Americans wish to see increased, because they somehow seem to have gotten the impression that the American people have said, “Stop using my tax dollars to take care of me.”

            The idea of having fiscal policies that necessitate social assistance and then cutting those programs also fails to meet the ‘fiscal and social responsibility’ criteria.

            This would also explain how Republicans and other conservatives have used our tax dollars to ship a significant portion of our middle class out of the country.

            How is this fiscally or socially responsible?

            No level of reasonable subjectivity is going to call the continuance of failed fiscal policies fiscally or socially responsible. John Adams said of the matter, “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men.”

            Plutarch said, “An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.”

            James Madison said, “Government should prevent an immoderate accumulation of riches.”

            Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton all agreed that too much money in the hands of too few would destroy democracy.

            Seems to me that they were right, if not downright prescient.

            America now ‘enjoys’ a level of income disparity not seen since before the Depression with over 90% of income going to the top 1%.

            How’s that fiscally or socially responsible?

            Supply-side economics has been a demonstrable failure. It’s the equivalent of building a skyscraper from the top down. The only reason it was implemented in Chile was through authoritarian conservatism resultant of Pinochet’s coup.

            It inevitably failed, to the surprise of very few.

            How is that fiscally or socially responsible?

            The U.S. infrastructure that the GOP once bragged about is now crumbling. It will cost over two trillion dollars just to keep things from getting worse. That’s not counting the new infrastructure needed for a population that has grown significantly since the 1970s: a point at which around roughly 85% of our current infrastructure was completed. Little new has been built since.

            A growing number of our bridges are rated as structurally deficient and are in dire need of repair or replacement. The typical bridge lifespan is fifty to eighty years. The vast majority of these are nearing their end, yet Republicans refuse to do anything about it.

            Until there’s imminent or catastrophic failure.

            How is this fiscally and socially responsible?

            Interest rates are at historic lows, There has never been a better time to invest in America to reverse this trend that will only lead to disaster.

            Yet Republicans refuse to do proper investment usually claiming that we can’t afford it.

            America cannot afford not to. Had this country been saddled with what could kindly be called this level of fiscal cowardice after WWII, we’d be the third-world country we’re currently heading toward becoming.

            Our debt-to-GDP ratio is nowhere near so high as it was after the War. Even with the massive investment of schools, sewers, hospitals, airports, highways, and more… it still took thirty years for that investment to pay off the debt of WWII around 1980.

            It’s gonna take a helluva lot longer this time because we’ve exported so much of our production capacity to enrich a very few at the expense of the country, not to mention lowering tax rates that used to insentivize reinvestment..

            How is this fiscally and socially responsible?

            Or, in another vein, the manner in which the ‘religious’ Right is claiming persecution by not being allowed to practice bigotry under the guise of ‘religious freedom’.

            “Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”
            ~~George Washington: letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792

            James Madison said, “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”

            Yet Republicans today falsely claim that America is a Christian nation despite the complete dearth of credible evidence to bolster their claim.

            Too many seek to make the Bible their official sate book, wish to have Christianity taught in schools yet bristle at the idea of this idea including the teaching of any other faiths, and seek to ostracize, if not condemn to death, those who follow their hearts to love whom they wish.

            This whole RFRA thing is precisely what the founders sought to avoid. They were well aware of the pitfalls of the theocracy so many Republicans wish to turn America in to. They saw what happened when religious ideology trumped reason: most famously with the Puritans brutalizing and sometimes being executed by the Massachusetts government for being a Quaker as was the case with Mary Dyer, among others.

            How is this socially responsible?

            Today’s GOP has shown a complete disinterest in governance. They have shown that they seek merely to rule.

            As a former Nixon staffer pointed out during da shrub’s second term:

            “Congress under Republican rule has proven to be incapable of deliberation, timely annual appropriations, and necessary oversight of a Republican president, all fundamental constitutional responsibilities of the legislative branch. Modern Republican presidents, in turn, believe that they must dominate the entire federal establishment, and in doing so override the fundamental safeguard of our system’s checks and balances. Corrupting the impartiality of the federal judiciary has been a priority of Republican presidents, who have devoted four decades to selecting primarily judges and justices with a radical conservative political philosophy. As a result these Republican-appointed jurists, who now constitute the prevailing majority, are no more objective and open-minded on countless issues that regularly come before the federal courts than the Republican National Committee.

            “Republicans have simply dismantled or ignored countless well-established processes found in the rules, customs, norms, transitions, laws, and constitutional mandates of the federal system. Refusing to govern by traditional standards , they create their own self-serving schemes that often they do not even attempt to justify.while at other times they rely on legal opinions that should result in disbarment of the attorneys who issue them. Ironically conservatives were once sticklers who insists that everyone play by the established rules; now they invent their own to fit their needs as required. Thus, we find Republicans demanding that lobbyists contribute to the party in substantial amounts before they are entitled to talk with GOP congressional leaders–an extortion worthy of the Mafia. We have an unaccountable Republican vice president secretly running the government because the president is not interested. We had the five conservative Republican justices who claimed allegiance to states’ rights–two of whom hoped to retire with conservative replacements (Rehnquist and O’Connor)–inventing a new one-time-only process (which, as they explained in their ruling, should be ignored by other courts) that enabled them to intervene to resolve the Florida vote count in Bush v Gore and short-circuit both state and federal procedures–just the way banana republics resolve their elections. One thing conservatism does not wish to conserve are processes that block their efforts to gain power.”

            I could go on making my case as I’ve done a somewhat less than thorough job of doing so, but as I mentioned earlier this p.o.s. netbook is, well, a p.o.s. Getting what I’ve written to remain intact long enough to post this has taken more than a little effort, but I thought your question deserved an answer.

            Btw, I’ve not missed a vote in over forty years.

            • Dude. TLDR (too long, didn’t read). Usually, if you write something that long, it won’t get a response. However, I did read it, and hope others will, and will respond.

              I do agree about infrastructure. At the point when we went into economic panic, in 2008, when people were thrown out of work, would have been the ideal time to work on the infrastructure. Missed opportunity.

              But you can’t convince anyone these days that the “public good” is, well, good. In Michigan, for instance, we’ve allowed our roads to deteriorate to cow paths, but the legislature refuses to do anything. They passed the buck, by putting it on the ballot to increase the SALES tax to pay for roads. People are thinking–sales tax, WTF? And it will be voted down on May 8.

              Roads are one of the things Obama was referring to when he said “you didn’t build that.” And now, we’re not even willing to “maintain that.” We’re standing by and watching our Great Nation collapse from neglect.

            • Yeah, sorry about that. Thanks for actually reading it. I did kinda go off and am usually more measured in my responses.

              Thanks again, and take care.

            • I skimmed (it’s a weekend) and better understand the point you’re trying to make.

              Did you mention a candidate?

              I assume you’ll vote third party, write in, or democrat since you’ve explained why every single Republican isn’t to your liking.

            • You’re right. I’ll definitely be going third candidate, but haven’t decided whom just yet.

              I do have a ridiculous amount of time to make the decision.

            • I don’t think most of the posters comprehend how this site works. When you get notification of a topic, if you don’t go to the site or if you go, but don’t check “follow,” you won’t get any of the posts in that thread.

              What that means is that this particular thread is only been between you, Nate, and me. Nobody else read what you wrote, which is why you didn’t get flamed.

              And that also means we can speak directly. As I noted elsewhere, your avatar looks like an extreme condemnation of the whole Republican Party. So it makes it hard for Republicans to take you seriously, and for those who may agree with you, they’re not so sure they want to be associated with the Swastika.

              Also, of course, “Progressive Republican” is a conflict in terms, in today’s extreme politics, so that also seems insincere. We just don’t have any Rockefellers, Scrantons, John Andersons, Teddy Roosevelts, or even Nixons, anymore.

              Today’s GOP has its majority by appealing to the extreme partisans of religious rights, gun rights, business rights, white peoples’ rights, “pro-life” rights, states’ rights, and others.

              By gathering up the extremists, they have the luxury of not having to appeal to the center. Everyone has some topic on which they agree with some extremist, whether they want to admit it or not.

              The party’s only real risk is that, at some point, the extreme views of one group will conflict with the extreme views of another, causing a rift.

              Meanwhile, Dems have appealed to women, gays, minorities, and the poor–but those are groups, not ideals, which is why they have been losing appeal, even while they have grown in numbers. Their appeal is wide, but shallow, only appealing by NOT standing for anything.

              You obviously have something to say, and are willing to provide references. But you’re putting off both sides of the arguments.

              Might I suggest that you consider starting over, with a different avatar for this site, and maybe a different name. That would be less likely to turn off others before you say anything.

            • I didn’t mean to denigrate. It’s just obvious that people don’t get it. Surf pontificates as if he’s at a convention, but there are only two or three people on that thread. But in this case, it allowed me to give PR an opinion on a more one-on-one basis.

            • Not in my experience. Typically, any response is viewed by all and I’ve seen more than a few devolve into one person eventually being somewhat ganged up on.

            • Ah. That’s not typical in my experience. Usually it seems that the comment section is viewed by all who register/sign in.

              My avatar is indeed an extreme indictment of the party and, as I’ve said elsewhere, when they stop their Nazi-like thuggish behavior, I’ll consider changing it.

              As one example, the Nazis posed as moral crusaders who wanted to stamp out the “vice” of homosexuality from Germany. In 1934, the Gestapo instructed local police forces to keep lists of all men engaged in homosexual activities and used these “pink lists” to hunt down individual homosexuals during police actions.

              On October 26, 1936, Himmler formed within the Security Police the Reich Central Office for Combating Abortion and Homosexuality. The police had powers to hold in protective custody or preventive arrest those deemed dangerous to Germany’s moral fiber, jailing indefinitely—without trial—anyone they chose.

              On April 4, 1938, the Gestapo issued a directive indicating that men convicted of homosexuality could be incarcerated in concentration camps. Between 1933 and 1945 the police arrested an estimated 100,000 men as homosexual.

              Always amusing to see those whose views so closely align with the Nazis, accuse others of being like them.

              Now granted, today’s GOP hasn’t gone that far, unless you want to include codifying bigotry under the guise of ‘religious liberty’, or the recent noise about legislating the death penalty for being gay.

              I don’t like seeing where they’ve drifted since I became a member, but the idea of registering Democrat truly makes me nauseous; possibly in large part due to their collective spinelessness. While having started actually standing for things over the last few years, they seem unwilling or unable to stand their ground.

              So far as your recommendations go, I don’t know how to customize my name/avatar for specific sites. What I have is what’s on Disqus.

              Thanks again. It’s rare that I get to communicate directly with site moderators without them admonishing me about something.

            • Yes, people who sign in will see what you’re saying, but my guess is that you are the ONLY non-moderator to sign into this thread. Otherwise, I’m sure you’d have been flamed by now.

              Personally, I like controversy, and reasonable desk pounding. But a lot of people shrink from extreme views, which are peppered with “Nazi,” “Communist,” or such labels.

              As for homosexualty, 61% of young Republicans are in favor of gay marriage. The times, they are a-changing.

            • Indeed. One hopes the change is for the better. While essential to growth, it is not synonymous.

            • And to reply to your post, what 3rd Party? Libertarian? Green? Socialist Labor? Constitution? Other?

            • I’ll reserve that decision for when I see someone presenting ideas that don’t have a blatant history of failure e.g. supply-side economics.

            • If you are so anti-Republican, wouldn’t it just make more sense to vote straight Democratic, to have some hope of voting out the Republicans you don’t like?

            • That may well be the case, but I doubt I’ll ever see a straight ticket I’d vote for. There has to be a measure of reality mixed in with the pipe dream, after all.

            • You want the Republican Party to be something it is not, which is the Democratic Party.

              You liberal on social issues? Fine! There is a party for that. Why bang your head against a wall trying to change a party which holds, in the platform, many things you oppose.

              Also, some argue George W. was in fact a “progressive Republican” with his “compassionate conservatism.”

              It all depends on your perspective… and everyone sees something different.

Comments are closed.