Slashdot Mirror
Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina Near Launching Presidential Bid
Rambo Tribble writes Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina announced on Fox News Sunday that she stood a 'higher than 90 percent' chance of running as a presidential candidate in 2016. Fiorina's tenure at HP was marked by controversy over her leadership, and it is unclear what level of name recognition she enjoys. Her only previous political experience appears to be a failed U.S. Senate seat effort in 2010, as the Republican candidate challenging sitting Democrat Barbara Boxer, in California. Fiorina lost by 10%.
Since she has a greater than 90% chance of running, she has a greater than 90% chance of losing. This truly is a case of "the only way not to lose is not to play the game."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Maybe she can fire Congress and fill their positions with H1Bs. Not like they can do any worse.
Wait until the SCOTUS tells states that immigration enforcement is a federal matter, and that states therefore cannot prevent illegal immigrants from voting or holding elected office. That's basically your joke come true.
Would you rather have her, or President Cruz?
Now, I remember rumors that when she was fired, engineers at HP spontaneously started singing, "Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead."
She was the most powerful business woman in the world for a while. And that's how people remember her. If she can build on that reputation, she has a chance.
I don't think she can build on that reputation, and I don't think she has a chance......but she does.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No, think that hey! summed it up fairly well. Fiorina has been extremely successful, even to the point of literally being phenomenal, for her own interests. The problem is, her interests are most every other person's interests are not necessarily compatible and may be outright hostile. One can argue that her success, while bad for just about everyone else that she has done business with, is still good for her.
Take another look at Mitt Romney for a moment, in the sense that his corporate interests have been successful, by and large, for shareholders in the firms that his loyalties have been to. He could at least claim that his policies were beneficial for shareholders and for the company, but even with such claims he still lost an election. I expect that many of the stories of companies purchased and stripped by Romney's companies, promptly laying-off thousands of workers in the process.
If Romney couldn't win despite having arguably a successful track-record, then I don't see how Fiorina could.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
That isn't a rumor. I was there, and yes, people did burst into song. I've never worked for a more hated CEO. She sure as Hell isn't getting my vote for anything.
- Necron69
As I see it, the serious candidates in the Republican party are (in no particular order): 1 Marco Rubio (experience: over ten years in congress, can win elections).
You're wrong about Rubio's having "over ten years in congress". Rubio did serve several terms in the Florida State House of Representatives, but he has never been a US Representative and is still a first term senator, having been elected in 2010. He's about as qualified as Obama was when Obama won the Presidency. He's probably unelectable thanks to some stupid moves he's made -- he voted against the Violence Against Women Act.
2 Scott Walker (experience: Governor, smashing unions and winning hard political fights)
George W. Bush used to say "I'm a uniter, not a divider." Scott Walker is his opposite, which leads me to think that he is not electable. Walker is still in his first term and he dropped out of college, which is a big negative (in my view). He was only one semester short of a degree, but he's never bothered to finish? Something's not quite right there.
3 Chris Christy (experience: Governor, reaches across the aisle, achieves Republican goals in a Democratic state).
Christy is a corrupt New Jersey politician. The question is whether or not that corruption will catch up to him before the election. I think it will.
IMHO, Republican primary voters appear incapable of recognizing competency. There are several good Republican Governors out there, but they're not on anybody's radar screen. The Governor of New Mexico is one -- she's in her second term, has apparently done a good job because she has very high public opinion poll ratings, and she happens to be a hispanic woman.... but few people outside of NM (and its neighboring states) have ever heard of her.
Depends on what she's really running for. Recent history indicates that a lot of the second tier candidates for the Republican nomination have managed to sufficiently raise their profile in so doing, and gone on to reasonably lucrative work as commentators on various news networks, especially Fox.
Or, as someone snarked to me about one candidate or another recently, "He/she's running for a Commentator spot on Fox, not for President."
While I agree with you that Libertarian =/= Anarchy, you will probably get a lot of arguments that 'getting government to operate withing budget' =/= Libertarian either.
In my mind 'getting government to operate withing budget' == Fiscal Conservative, which is why I cannot vote for the 'modern' GOP which thinks that it's roles is to play world police while cutting taxes for the wealthy and putting the country into deep debt.
I find it odd that the most fiscally conservative national figure these days is President Obama, whose tight-fisted use of stimulus and reduction of the deficit during he recover would have probably pissed off FDR.
President Obama could pull off a really good Goldwater impersonation if he was only more willing to nuke some third world countries, he already manages to pull off most of the positive traits of Nixon.
Wherever You Go, There You Are
I would speculate she is not competent enough for certain voters and not irrational enough for certain others, but by participating as a candidate, she will have an effect on which other candidates will be viable, by making others look good or bad by comparison.
Chris Christy scares the bejesus out of me. His personality is scary. He is the kind of guy who in my opinion you don't want to give too much power. The way he shouts down people who are weaker than him particularly concerns me. This article is a good summary of him.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
For all I dislike the Republicans and all of their recent actions and policy proposals, I have to disagree on this. The base of their party is deep enough in wingnut land that they absolutely would back even a black woman, IF she gave full throated backing to all of their beliefs, dogmas, and notions. In fact, they'd absolutely relish throwing that in the face of the Left.
That said, this isn't something where they'll simply take anyone. Such a candidate would need to be in a position to take advantage of this, get access to donors, have the "experience" to push ahead. They'd need to be good at putting together and running a campaign. They'd need to be able to go toe to toe with all the other competitors and not stumble/look like an idiot/etc.
Part of the reason the Republican party fields minority candidates at lower rates isn't because they wouldn't back one - even Herman Cain had a moment where he was at the top of the polls, but he was a very flawed candidate once you got past the initial pitch. Go look at the following that Ben Carson has, and how many in the conservative base would love for him to run (and he might, though that doesn't mean he'll succeed, for the same reasons). No, it's because it's not easy to be a candidate for President without having worked your way up through lower offices, building a reputation, establishing contacts, etc. Every single successful candidate for either party in the last hundred years or so has. The only shortcut is through family connections, but even then they're running for Senator or Governor first. It's at the lower ranks that the potential candidates are weeded out, or just never given the opportunities to begin with.