Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 24, 2017, 10:36:28 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 15
51  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Whatever happened to the Ron Paul Revolution? on: February 29, 2016, 07:38:28 pm
So am I wrong in suggesting that there's any significant overlap between Ron Paul supporters, this year's Rand Paul's supporters, and the Tea Party? It sounds like while the TP is in favor of some of the policy ideas that's on the same road to libertarianism (starve the beast, cut taxes, government out of many places), the people supporting Rand Paul and the people supporting Ted Cruz have little to no overlap at all.
52  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Alternative Elections / Chaos Race 2016 on: February 29, 2016, 07:34:33 pm
Variation of the War of the Five POTUS.

Trump wins majority delegates at the RNC in July 21, but the Republican establishment freaks out and keeps the nomination from him via brokered convention, and Rubio becomes the anointed candidate. Embittered and still uber-popular, Trump reverses his pledge to Norquist, runs as an independent under the Make America Great Again Party. He also makes several other populist moves, including rescinding his anti-tax pledge to Norquist, putting forth a new economic plan that makes more concessions to the middle class, as well as suggesting big infrastructural programs. He also declares the need to "Cure Public Health Once and for All" with his own upcoming healthcare plan that includes "stopping Big Pharma from overcharging you" also anti-epidemic initiatives that would "work with the FBI and military" to "prevent Zika and ebola from ever endangering American citizens." Ben Carson is rumored to have been asked to serve as his new Surgeon General.

Alone in his hotel room at the RNC, Ted Cruz watches the events on television. He bows his head in prayer. Several minutes later, he raises his infamous visage and declares that the convention pick was unjust and refuses to abide by it. In an emergency rally, he refuses to concede to Rubio and instead declares a "righteous crusade" to wrest the Republican Party from "Rubio's neoconservatism and pro-amnesty globalism" and "Trump's secret socialist sympathies." Though only a minority of the evangelicals and 'very conservative' Tea Party partisans who previously supported him rally to his Real Republican Party, he also bleeds some MAGAP folks who are betrayed by Trump's apparent support for big government programs.

A week later, the Democratic nominee is Hillary, who prevails in a very close primary fight and is widely perceived to have been selected via brokered convention (despite the rumor being most likely untrue). She wins the nomination, loses the mandate. Revolt risk in the Democratic party is at record heights. The RNC is already over for a week and both Cruz and Trump have already announced third-party candidacies. Anti-Hillary groups, furious at the party establishment but perceiving progressive victory to be inevitable since the right-wing is divided, switch to an unprecedentedly massive write-in campaign for Sanders. Despite only capturing the attention, much less support of a minority of formerly pro-Bernie voters, disgruntlement at the party machinery and discomfort at voting for Hillary causes uncertainty in many Democrats, especially with the youth. Sanders himself rejects any sort of third party run, but his movement has marched onwards without him, intent on drafting him via write-in; direct democracy by sidestepping the party nomination process entirely. He also does not endorse or support Hillary, despite officially conceding to her at the convention. His supporters insist that he can be drafted, and that the three-way Republican split means that a Democratic victory is inevitable.

True to his words, former Gov. Jesse Ventura launches his candidacy with Sanders' official defeat in the primary. As part of this, he resurrects the Reform Party label.

In other third party news, the Libertarian Party chooses a unity Gary Johnson-John McAfee joint ticket. The experience of Johnson and the celebrity antics of McAfee (as well as his personal wealth) helps the party attain an unprecedented level (for the Libertarians, that is) of exposure and semi-respectability. Let's say 2000 Nader-levels of general public awareness.

Amidst all of this, Bloomberg jumps in as centrist unity figure.

So, uh, how does this play out?
53  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Whatever happened to the Ron Paul Revolution? on: February 29, 2016, 07:19:28 pm
So his son's run this year fizzled out. The primary field was overcrowded, and the antiestablishmentarian fire was stolen by Trump, and to some degree by Ted Cruz. But my question is also ideological: was Ron Paul's libertarianism specific only to him in the GOP? Rand Paul differed with his dad on several issues, and in some ways seemed slightly more of a conventional Republican. And the rise of the Tea Party basically created a hard-right anti-government, anti-tax movement that stole many of the Ron Paul Revolution's ideas anyway. And it seems like most "conventional" libertarians are in the Libertarian Party.

The Ron Paul Revolution was never going to sweep the GOP, but I'm curious if it could ever be a force again in future elections like it did in 2008. Or maybe it was a one time thing, like Perot in '92. If a Republican doesn't win this year, Rand Paul could run in 2020, but I'm imagining he'd probably get even less support than he does now.
54  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Effects of a Sanders nomination on leftist third party candidacies on: February 29, 2016, 07:00:14 pm
Because people don't like to waste their votes. Third parties improving significantly are up there with electoral college ties and brokered conventions - things that are constantly speculated about every election but never actually happen.

I think you're misreading what I'm saying. I'm suggesting that if Sanders was the nomination, some of the third party votes for leftist candidates might go to him. Similar to fusionism in the past, where Populists voted Democrat after William Jennings Bryan became the nominee.
55  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Effects of a Sanders nomination on leftist third party candidacies on: February 29, 2016, 06:55:25 pm
Why not?
56  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Effects of a Sanders nomination on leftist third party candidacies on: February 29, 2016, 06:45:38 pm
This is a really obscure question for a rather unlikely scenario. Let's say Sanders somehow beats Hillary for the Democratic nomination. Does that mean many votes that would otherwise go to Jill Stein of the Green Party and Gloria La Riva of Party for Socialism and Liberation, not to mention all of the even smaller and lesser-known third parties, might go to him?
57  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Should Rick Perry have continued his campaign, and effects? on: February 24, 2016, 08:17:28 pm
Could he have made any amusing impacts at the debates, like when Christie short-circuited Rubio?
58  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Should Rick Perry have continued his campaign, and effects? on: February 24, 2016, 07:58:30 pm
Looks like things worked out for him in court: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/us/texas-court-drops-criminal-case-against-rick-perry.html?_r=0

So what happens if he had not dropped out?
59  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bloomberg runs. Who benefits the republican candidate or democrat? Swing-states? on: February 24, 2016, 07:13:51 pm
Bloomberg is often viewed by liberals as an authoritarian crypto-racist for the Stop and Frisk program.
60  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bloomberg runs. Who benefits the republican candidate or democrat? Swing-states? on: February 23, 2016, 12:41:28 pm
So the National Review editorial board, establishment GOP intelligentsia, and other people who follow them would rather hold their noses and vote for Trump, or stay at home, rather than vote for Bloomberg?
61  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bloomberg runs. Who benefits the republican candidate or democrat? Swing-states? on: February 22, 2016, 07:16:31 pm
Bloomberg is big money, corporate type. Sure he's socially liberal but he's also very fiscally conservative. Establishment/Rockerfeller Republicans, Wall Street types, plutocrats, Grover Norquist anti-taxers will flock to him instead of the pseudo-populist Trump.

Face it, he'll cut into both candidates, just not evenly.
62  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Would Webb be the perfect VP choice for a Bloomberg run? on: February 22, 2016, 06:33:34 pm
I just thought there was nice symmetry in terms of how they're geographically and social class/background-wise opposite to each other.
63  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Alternative Elections / 2016: The War of the Five POTUS on: February 22, 2016, 06:32:36 pm
Trump wins majority delegates at the RNC in July 21, but the Republican establishment freaks out and keeps the nomination from him via brokered convention, and Rubio becomes the anointed candidate. Embittered and still uber-popular, Trump reverses his pledge to Norquist, runs as an independent under the Make America Great Again Party.

A week later, the Democratic nominee is Hillary, who prevails in a very close primary fight and is widely perceived to have been selected via brokered convention (despite the rumor being most likely untrue). She wins the nomination, loses the mandate. Revolt risk in the Democratic party is at record heights. RNC is already over for a week and Trump has already announced his third-party candidacy. Anti-Hillary groups, furious at the party establishment but perceiving progressive victory to be inevitable since the right-wing is divided, switch to an unprecedentedly massive write-in campaign for Sanders. Despite only capturing the attention, much less support of a minority of formerly pro-Bernie voters, disgruntlement at the party machinery and discomfort at voting for Hillary causes uncertainty in many Democrats, especially with the youth. Sanders himself rejects any sort of third party run, but his movement has marched onwards without him, intent on drafting him via write-in; direct democracy by sidestepping the party nomination process entirely. He also does not endorse or support Hillary, despite officially conceding to her at the convention.

Bloomberg jumps in as centrist unity figure. Soft five-way race. Clinton (D) vs. Rubio (R) vs. Trump (M) vs. Sanders (D/S- write-in only) vs. Bloomberg (U)

Who would the likely running mates be, and how would this play out?

Feel free to swap Rubio for some other establishment figure as well, if the RNC feels that he can't beat Hillary. Maybe Romney?
64  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Would Webb be the perfect VP choice for a Bloomberg run? on: February 22, 2016, 06:23:55 pm
Incoherence works when faced with the already incoherent populism of Trump, and the extreme (for American audiences) retro-New Deal social democracy of Sanders, though. Both running mates just need to be mainstream enough to be vaguely socially liberal, fiscally conservative, ultra-moderate to appeal to people alarmed by the other two.

Agreed that it'd be low energy, but then who would be better, and willing, to run with Bloomberg? Nader?
65  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Would Webb be the perfect VP choice for a Bloomberg run? on: February 22, 2016, 06:14:28 pm
Not that Bloomberg is going to run, but if he did (against Trump and Sanders- do not consider this scenario if Rubio or Hillary are nominated).

  • Already considered running as an independent. (Though rejected it)
  • Balances the ticket very well (Bloomberg is northern, wealthy, business magnate, Jewish; Webb is southern, more working class, Vietnam veteran, WASP)
  • Both are already on the moderate-fringes of the party (Bloomberg is a Rockefeller-RINO type, Webb is pretty Blue Dog), but in a way more mainstream than Sanders or Trump.
  • Can appeal to the status quo, older, white, male demographic (establishment Republicans, conservative Democrats who can't stomach Trump). So essentially a pseudo-bipartisan unity ticket.

On the other hand the two cancel each other out on gun control, among other issues. Who else would be good for Bloomberg?
66  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Should Jon Huntsman have run this year? on: February 22, 2016, 03:58:51 pm
Okay, how well would he have done if Kasich hadn't run?

I think despite being a better candidate and person in general, he would have done worse than Kasich, probably. He had his reputation from 2012 and working for Obama that would have held him back.
67  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Should Jon Huntsman have run this year? on: February 22, 2016, 03:04:54 pm
Given that Kasich is doing better than he did, and that Huntsman is the real deal, he could have at least had a somewhat honorable defeat by Super Tuesday.
68  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Potential Bernie Sanders Zombie Campaign? on: February 21, 2016, 03:30:51 pm
Saw this online:

Quote
the D nominee is Hillary, who prevails in a very close primary fight and is widely perceived to have been selected via brokered convention (despite the rumor being most likely untrue). She wins the nomination, loses the mandate. Revolt risk in the Democratic party is at record heights. RNC is already over for a week and Trump has already announced his third-party candidacy. Anti-Hillary groups, furious at the party establishment but perceiving progressive victory to be inevitable since the right-wing is divided, switch to an unprecedentedly massive write-in campaign for Sanders. Despite only capturing the attention, much less support of a minority of formerly pro-Bernie voters, disgruntlement at the party machinery and discomfort at voting for Hillary causes uncertainty in many Democrats, especially with the youth. Sanders himself rejects any sort of third party run, but his movement has marched onwards without him, intent on drafting him via write-in; direct democracy by sidestepping the party nomination process entirely. Bloomberg jumps in as centrist unity figure. Soft five-way race. The War of the Five POTUS.
69  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Underestimate Michael R. Bloomberg at your own risk on: February 21, 2016, 03:28:52 pm
After bearing witness to the Rise of Trump, I'm certainly not going to underestimate the appeal of other vaguely-fascist New York billionaires.

The question is, how many can one race support?
70  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kasich confirmed as Huntsman 2.0: Wont even be in Iowa for the Caucus on: January 29, 2016, 01:05:59 am
Once again, Kasich is no Huntsman.

From a liberal/leftist standpoint, he's actually worse than Huntsman. And has a bad personality.

Quote
John Kasich is an arrogant, prickly, rude, and off-putting jerk, who childishly ignores those who oppose him when they are in the same room together, while refusing to debate publicly, berates those who challenge him, liberal and conservative alike, and favors superstition-based acquiescence in the face of a scientifically-proved threat to our very existence.
71  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Analogize Kasich on: January 28, 2016, 05:58:55 pm
From a liberal/leftist standpoint, he's actually worse than Huntsman. And has a bad personality.

Quote
John Kasich is an arrogant, prickly, rude, and off-putting jerk, who childishly ignores those who oppose him when they are in the same room together, while refusing to debate publicly, berates those who challenge him, liberal and conservative alike, and favors superstition-based acquiescence in the face of a scientifically-proved threat to our very existence.
72  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rubio Not Winning the Establishment Because He's too Conservative on: January 25, 2016, 01:32:34 pm
I don't thinkRubio is really a moderate establishment guy. He's just moderate compared to hardline right wingers like Cruz. The Donald is more moderate on most issues (social issues, taxes, foreign policy- Trump likes to play the bully, but he's no warmonger and no neocon).
In rhetoric only. By most other measures, he is just as conservative as Cruz if not more so.

With Trump (and Fiorina, Cain, etc.) all we have is rhetoric. We don't have governing or voting history to go on.
73  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Commission on Presidential Debates is prepping for a 3rd party candidate. on: January 25, 2016, 01:29:30 pm
The obvious answer isn't Bloomberg. It's Trump, if the GOP doesn't nominate him.
74  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bloomberg Running Mate? on: January 24, 2016, 07:14:44 pm
I feel like Bloomberg would choose someone like Huntsman.
Literally my dream ticket.

Ugh, could you possibly be more boring politically? What's next? You support "common sense reform"?

McCain/Lieberman would be more boring.

I want Huntsman but don't see the appeal of Bloomberg. There's plenty of RINO mavericks out there- Schwarzenegger would have been cool before his scandal. Dunno if there are any high-profile Blue Dogs or other Democrats who could appeal to Republicans right now besides Webb. But Webb's zaniness sort of reminds me of Zell Miller in '04.
75  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Meta: Who predicted Trump? on: January 24, 2016, 06:58:02 pm
With some tinkering of the Search function, I was able to find posts from 2004 discussing Trump running as a Reform party candidate, saying how he's a libertarian. Ah, those were some far-off days.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 15


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines