Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 25, 2014, 07:40:16 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 63
1  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Summary of political beliefs on: July 24, 2014, 11:45:09 pm
As of now, socially and fiscally center-left. Foreign policy really can't be classified in left-right terminology, but I'd call myself a neo-liberal ala Bill Clinton.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Past Election What-ifs (US) / Re: 2000: What about President Gore? on: July 24, 2014, 09:13:04 pm
Gore probably wins. It's a lot harder to run against an incumbent President than a sitting VP. Gore would use the power of the office to make a name for himself (probably on HMO or campaign finance reform) before running. It's possible the Republican field is thinner than OTL (maybe Bush waits until '04). Either way, Gore wins.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Past Election What-ifs (US) / Re: 1964: Kennedy/Johnson vs Goldwater/Tower on: July 24, 2014, 09:11:09 pm
The CRA probably doesn't pass Congress in 1964, as it took a series of lucky events to get it passed when it did IOTL. I see it passing in early 1965 after Kennedy trounces the anti-CRA Goldwater. Dirksen will move to break the filibuster to avoid continued problems on Civil Rights. Here are my predictions for a second Kennedy term on major LBJ items:

-VRA: Can get passed at any point between 1965-1969. Much less controversial than the CRA. Comes down to how much effort/political capital Kennedy wants to spend on it.
-Medicare/Medicaid: Good chance of Medicare passing once Harry Byrd, Sr. passes away/steps down as Senate Finance Committee Chairman. IOTL he was dead set against passing it until Johnson gave him the 'treatment.' His sucessor, Russell Long, was much more supportive, as was House Ways and Means Chairman Wilbur Mills, who will get it passed with bipartisan support after the '64 elections. Medicaid may or may not get added to the package. 1966-'67
-Tax Cuts: Kennedy will have to agree to Byrd's proposed budget cuts if he wants it passed before the election, which he will. 1964.
-War on Poverty: One of JFK's last notes was 'POVERTY.' He also asked the head of the Census Bureau to analyze how taking on poverty would help him in 1964. That being said, JFK lacked the same emotional commitment to fighting poverty than LBJ, along with the lack of legislating skills. I'd expect greater funding for existing programs (Appalachia development, Food Stamps, AFDC, etc.) rather than the creation of new bureaucracies and programs.
-ESEA: Unlikely to pass for a few reasons. Mostly because JFK was trapped between Northern Catholic Democrats who wanted aid for parochial schools, but Dixiecrats wanted nothing of the sort. LBJ ultimately tied funding to students and not schools, and was largely successful because he wasn't Catholic.  Hard to see Kennedy pulling this one off.

Overall Kennedy can probably get most of the big items of the 'Great Society' passed in 1964 and 1965, but not everything. He also won't push for, nor would he get passed, as large of a War on Poverty than LBJ. I'm not touching Vietnam here, as that's a whole nother can of worms.
4  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: The Rehabilitation of Martha Coakley on: July 24, 2014, 03:20:44 pm
There's a big difference between a race for governor and a race for the Senate. In 2010, Brown won largely because of controversy over the ACA and Coakley's weak campaign. Alone, neither of these factors would have cost her the election, but combined they did. In that sense, Coakley can run a weak campaign and still win, though it'll be tough. There are no national issues at play in this election, and will probably win based on party affiliation.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: What States Would Have Remained Swing States If Bush Had Won In '92 on: July 24, 2014, 03:16:40 pm
To answer this question, we first must see what states Bush would have won in 1992 to defeat Bill Clinton. According to the Atlas, the narrowest victory for Bush involves him swinging Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana,  New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. In this scenario, all of New England besides New Hampshire stay blue, joining New Jersey as the only Northeastern states in the Republic column. Ultimately, this creates a scenario pretty similar to the political map today, more or less. Therefore, I don't see a lot of changes.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Battleground Georgia: Democrats see 2014 flip on: July 24, 2014, 12:07:13 pm
Actually, the best comparison I can think of for Nunn for someone currently in the Senate is Mark Warner.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Battleground Georgia: Democrats see 2014 flip on: July 24, 2014, 12:04:15 pm
On the question of Nunn and Carter's political ideologies, they are both pretty moderate and actually break with the Democratic leadership on some big issues:

Nunn: Fiscally conservative, pro-entitlement reform, supports corporate tax reduction and reform, free trader, pro-small business deregulation, opposed to defense spending cuts.

Carter: Pro-small business tax reform, pro-gun, pro-charter school.

In both cases, they've embraced the necessary niche to be competitive in Georgia. They've taken pro-business, socially moderate stances, without alienating their base. Nunn's actually quite a bit like her father on all the big issues, though she seems slightly more liberal.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: IF David Perdue wins in Georgia this year..... on: July 24, 2014, 11:52:51 am
I'm rooting for Michelle Nunn obviously, but Perdue probably doesn't have much of a future outside of the Senate if he wins. That being said, the GOP leadership will probably try to put him forward as an economic spokesperson considering that he's much more palatable than Ted Cruz or Rand Paul.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Alternative Elections / Re: 1994 New York Governor on: July 22, 2014, 05:27:52 pm
Pataki also played up negative stereotypes about the City, which probably helped to convince Giuliani to endorse Cuomo. Pataki and Giuliani's rivalry continued for quite some time.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Political Lions on: July 22, 2014, 05:21:46 pm
Not sure if Kennedy would run without Carter in the race, but still interesting start!
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: A Proven Winner in '68 on: July 22, 2014, 05:14:37 pm
The lack of peace talks may actually benefit Kennedy, as it allows him to keep criticizing the war in good faith. If the talks were to begin, it would largely undercut his message among many moderates.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International What-ifs / Re: How would you have voted, Israeli edition on: July 21, 2014, 01:53:47 pm
Four years later and after reading much more about Israeli politics:

1949: Progressive Party
1951: Progressive Party
1955: Progressive Party
1959: Progressive Party
1961: Liberal
1965: Independent Liberals
1969: Independent Liberals
1973: Independent Liberals
1977: Dash
1981: Shinui
1984: Shinui
1988: Shinui
1992: Meretz
1996: Meretz
1999: Shinui
2003: Shinui
2006: Kadima
2009: Kadima
2013: Yesh Atid

1996: Shimon Peres
1999: Ehud Barak
2001: Ariel Sharon
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International What-ifs / Re: How would you have voted? Republic of Ireland edition on: July 21, 2014, 01:07:32 pm
Somewhere in-between Fine Gael and Labour.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Alternative Elections / Re: 1994 New York Governor on: July 20, 2014, 10:42:33 pm
The debates likely would have benefited Cuomo as he was the more seasoned candidate and a strong public speaker. It's likely Pataki chose to avoid the debates for fear of being defeated by Cuomo. While refusing to appear likely did cost him some support, that was a negligible loss compared to the potential loss of being defeated on television by Cuomo.

As to your question on why Cuomo lost; the biggest issue in the election was crime, which was still a major problem in New York City. Cuomo was a strong opponent of the death penalty, while Pataki was a supporter of it. This helped Pataki greatly. Another major factor was that 1994 was a bad year for Democrats nationally, and Cuomo's three terms as Governor reflected a major national complaint directed at Congressional Democrats: They had been in power too long and were out-of-touch.

Hope that helped!
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Ford does NOT pardon Nixon on: July 20, 2014, 01:28:26 pm
This scenario probably helps Reagan, as it causes enough Republicans to bolt from the current Administration and support the reform-minded Reagan. Also, if Hammerschmidt loses in Arkansas, we get Congressman Bill Clinton!
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International What-ifs / Re: De Gaulle finishes his term on: July 20, 2014, 12:01:47 pm
I still think Pompidou probably succeeds him if De Gaulle passes away before 1974. If he lasts to the end of his term, I'd expect someone like Pierre Messmer to step forward. The biggest long-term impact is probably a greater acceptance of decentralized power in France, and also that the Prime Minister becomes President if the President passes away. I don't see De Gaulle serving much longer having a great impact on the politics of France. 
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International What-ifs / Re: How would you have voted: Canadian edition on: July 20, 2014, 11:55:37 am
True Grit.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Master comeback....The Rick Perry Story on: July 20, 2014, 11:46:04 am
Interesting start. I've always found Perry to be an interesting candidate, considering how strong he looks on paper but how he fell flat on the national stage. Looking forward to see where you go with this.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: 2004: Gore/Lieberman vs McCain/Hunter on: March 28, 2014, 03:20:10 pm
I wrote a timeline dealing with this scenario on AH.com. Basically, I think that Gore wouldn't have gotten as big a popularity boost as Bush post-9/11 for several reasons: 1) Bush wasn't blamed for the intelligence failures that allowed 9/11 to occur because he wasn't on the job very long. Gore was a part of Clinton's team, and wouldn't have received the same honeymoon. 2) Bush's personality was well suited to responding to an event like 9/11. Gore was viewed as more studious, patient, and reserved, traits which would not have had the same positive effect as Bush's. 3) In a somewhat unrelated note, assuming Gore does not invade Iraq, the neoconservatives along with many other members of the GOP will attack him for failing to pursue the War on Terror vigorously enough.

Taken together, along with Democratic fatigue and low turnout among liberals (due to Gore's ideology and a lack of fear of a McCain presidency), I see McCain narrowly defeating Gore. Then again, the election could very easily swing the other way with Gore winning narrowly.
20  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: You are George H.W Bush.... on: April 09, 2013, 03:02:59 pm
Kemp, because he provides cover on Bush's right-flank and experience on tax and poverty issues (two areas where Bush had significantly less)
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: did Al Gore rise too quickly? on: February 21, 2013, 01:56:18 pm
No, Gore did not rise too quickly. He did everything needed to cement himself as the top Democrat when the time came to run. A sucessful career in the House in the Senate? Check. An "I told-you-so" campaign in 1988? Check. A role on the winning ticket in 1992? Check. A prominent Vice-Presidency which emphasized his moderate bonafides? Check. The execution of the 2000 campaign was all that held Al Gore back from becoming President of the United States.

1992 would have been another great oppurtunity for Gore. The DLC was becoming a major force in the Democratic Party, and Gore's views fit pretty well with the moderate wing of the party. But before we go crowning him, let's look at the negatives. Namely, Gore's no Clinton. He isn't nearly as charismatic as Bill and lacked the eventual President's strongest trait: Clinton could give the same speech to a crowd of white people as he could to black people (otherwise known as genuine empathy). Gore was much more stiff and tailored. He also lacks Clinton's need to be liked/loved. Gore is a much more privatve and family-oriented man, meaning he doesn't accept criticism very well. Bill did, making him an effective negotiator. I doubt a Gore presidency, if he were to win, would be nearly as sucessful as Clinton's was.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Would Clinton really have done that much better than Obama in Appalachia? on: November 29, 2012, 05:28:54 pm
2008? Yes. There are a few reasons. The first is cultural. Clinton spun a strong narrative in the primaries as a daughter of middle America. Obama was very much seen as a product of an elite Harvard-Chicago political system that greatly turns off Appalachian voters. The second is the Bill factor. Don't underestimate how popular he is in that area of the country. He symbolizes economic growth, as well as the ascension of the Southern culture to the highest office in the country. Hillary would benefit from that popularity, and she'd be wise enough to deploy Bill to those states. Third, Clinton's campaign was aimed at working class Americans. Obama's message of "Hope and Change" wasn't elitist, but it primarily appealed to outsiders (African-Americans, young people, more affluent voters) who haven't been targeted in recent elections. White-working class voters are part of Clinton's base, and she communicated directly to them.

With that all in mind, I see the 2008 election map turning out something like this:

Senator Hillary Clinton/Senator Evan Bayh (D): 360 EVs, 52% of the PV
Senator John McCain/Governor Tim Pawlenty (R): 178 EVs, 46% of the PV

Now here's how I see 2012 turning out. Let's assume Clinton pushes harder on the economy, but only gets a few elements of healthcare reform passed and takes a more hawkish tone on foreign policy. Also, let's assume she faces off against Mitt Romney in the election.

President Hillary Clinton/Vice-President Evan Bayh (D): 50% of the PV, 327 EVs
Governor Mitt Romney/Senator Rob Portman (R): 48% of the PV, 211 EVs
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Alternative Elections / Re: Cuomo vs. Bush vs. Perot 92 on: November 26, 2012, 10:50:08 pm
Cuomo would have won by a very narrow margin. It also depends on whether or not Perot stays in the race. He was polling strongly when he withdrew from the race. But assuming that he drops out, here's how I imagine the electoral map looking:

Mario Cuomo/Ann Richards (D): 40% of the PV, 301 Electoral Votes
George H.W. Bush/Dan Quayle (R): 40% of the PV, 237 Electoral Votes
H. Ross Perot/Andrew Stockdale (I): 20% of the PV
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: is Obama automatically obliged to support/campaign for Biden? on: October 15, 2012, 12:10:46 pm
Presidents rarely get too involved in the succession process. If there's an open primary, than Obama would do more harm than good if he intervened. That would be especially the case if both Biden AND Clinton run. Both are members of his cabinet, and both would be entitled some degree of support. Therefore, he probably wouldn't give support to either candidate to prevent any sort of blowback from the other.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: What if Al Gore had picked John Edwards to be his running mate in 2000 instead? on: September 18, 2012, 02:33:54 pm
Bob Shrum was one several top Gore adivers who suggested picking Edwards. They believed that the campaign lacked in enthusiasm. Edwards was seen as a "rock star" who could get out the vote among the Democratic base. Whether or not this is true, I don't think Edwards would have given Gore the bump necessary to help him win the election. He may have helped in the South, but not enough to swing any states. Also, Lieberman proved to be a major boost in Florida. So it's quite plausible that the results in Florida wouldn't have been as close as they were in real life. As far as the future goes, Edwards enters the 2004 Democratic primaries as an early fronturnner. There's a very good chance that he goes on to win the nomination with the added name recognition and fundraising that goes along with being the "next man up."
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 63

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines