Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 27, 2016, 05:08:09 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 138
151  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: MARCO RUBIO: CANDIDATE OF THE YOUTH on: December 18, 2015, 09:08:50 pm
On the other hand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/12/14/should-hillary-clinton-be-worried-about-marco-rubio-probably-heres-why/

Quote
There is a striking finding in the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll: Marco Rubio is tied with Hillary Clinton among young voters. Given the importance of Barack Obamas overwhelming margins among young voters to his two victories and, more broadly, given that Democrats are betting the future of the party on their rising coalition of young voters and minorities this is something Democrats should probably start paying attention to right now.

I'm sure the DNC will get on this problem right away and take care not to damage their relationship with the legions of young people excited by Bernie Sanders.
152  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: DNC software breach gave Sanders campaign confidential Clinton Data on: December 18, 2015, 06:51:46 pm
The DNC shredded their credibility a long time ago. The good news for Trump keeps coming.
153  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: DNC software breach gave Sanders campaign confidential Clinton Data on: December 18, 2015, 06:02:50 pm
Everyone knows the game is rigged here. Hillary's campaign lobbied for few debates scheduled when few would watch them and the DNC obliged. No one serious believes her campaign would be punished similarly if the situation were reversed. The DNC is in the tank for her. The game is rigged and it confirms Sanders's message
I know the backlash against Clinton if her campaign was the one stealing data would be much, much worse.

Not form the DNC it wouldn't. They would do her whatever favor they could get away with.
154  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: DNC software breach gave Sanders campaign confidential Clinton Data on: December 18, 2015, 05:54:52 pm
That time AdamGriffin became a PUMA.

The first two letters of that acronym can't apply when an actual primary wasn't allowed to happen in the first place*.

*"But they let him run fair and square for the first half of it, at least!"
The 2008 primary wasn't democratic at all either. The candidate who got the most votes lost due to delegates from Michigan and Florida being barred from the convention. It's naive to think that the Democratic primary process was designed to produce a Democratic outcome as opposed to produce who the party wants as the nominee for the general election.

You're wrong on a few points.

Obama beat Hillary in the popular vote in states where they were both on the ballot.

Florida and Michigan were ultimately given full slates.

Hillary didn't complain at all when they were sanctioned, only asking the DNC to change its rules months later once she started losing to Obama. Despite this being absurd and unfair to the Obama campaign, the DNC held a hearing on it.

Hillary's strategy was to win the nomination using super delegates which weren't determined by any election.

---

Everyone knows the game is rigged here. Hillary's campaign lobbied for few debates scheduled when few would watch them and the DNC obliged. No one serious believes her campaign would be punished similarly if the situation were reversed. The DNC is in the tank for her. The game is rigged and it confirms Sanders's message




155  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Would you be comfortable with an atheist as president? on: December 18, 2015, 03:58:15 pm
I personally would be more comfortable with an atheist than a religious president. An openly atheist Republican could never get nominated. I'm sure we've had a few closeted atheist presidents. Speaking of closeted, polls have shown America is more ready for a gay president than an atheist one. Not even sure an atheist Democrat could get nominated. Sanders is openly secular fwiw.

156  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Guess! Who will be in Hillary's VP Final Shortlist and Who will She Pick? on: December 18, 2015, 04:13:03 am
Hilda Solis will certainly be on that list -if she's interested.  

Bernie's shortlist but not Hillary's.

Hillary is the one that needs some shoring up to do with the activist base -not Sanders.  And Hilda fills that role perfectly. 

She's a woman though, and a two-female ticket might be pushing it a little.

Even if you believe that's true, people sometimes end up on the short list for symbolic reasons.  You may want to pander to such-and-such a constituency, so you at least go through the motions of considering a VP candidate they would like.  Even if your chances of picking them are slim.


Yeah, there was a list leaked earlier this year that had Kaine, Bennet, Castro and Kamala Harris. If she wants to pick a white male there's even a logic to putting someone like Harris (who checks multiple boxes) on the leak list because you have an excuse for going another way: she's not ready. Same with Booker and Castro.
157  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What was your former predictions? (GOP edition) on: December 17, 2015, 05:16:41 pm
And how long did you think Trump lasted?

I first thought it fad.  
Then thought it mad.  
After the first debate I was glad
(because I thought Trump's victory forbad)

But to my surprise
He continued to rise
I still can't visualize
that Trump they glamorize

And I'm still mistyfied
That he has been denied
The electorate's chide
Or political suicide.

At this point I'll mention
that I have yet no intention
of predicting Trump's ascension
In the Republican convention.

But then, I always manage to get these things wrong.
Perhaps it seems more clever if I couch it in song.


I can't be the only one who was just moved to tears.
158  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What was your former predictions? (GOP edition) on: December 17, 2015, 04:59:56 pm
4 months ago, right after the first GOP debate that the pundits awarded to Kasich and Rubio, I predicted an upcoming Carson collapse (got the trigger wrong though) paving the way for Cruz vs Trump to close out the year. And not to pick on Famous Mortimer for his idealism but his prediction that the GOP would avoid Islamaphobia is not holding up well.

May I humbly suggest a scenario to root for? Since this will probably sink Carson and Fiorina's pro-Islam speech will probably sink her, the Cruz surge is probably coming. We want to see him stubbornly trail only Trump by only 5 points after he has made such a big show of (a) declining to attack anyone (b) cozying up to Trump. And then a frantic Cruz vs Trump to close out the year? That's fun.

This could sink Carson. No one gives a crap about Fiorina saying nice things about non-al Qaeda Muslims outside some Washington Express writer and Democrats on Atlas though.

I think the opposite is true. Democrats on Atlas don't care about it. A GOP primary electorate who fears Sharia Law will imminently replace the Constitution would care if she gets enough momentum for an opponent to promote this.

No Republican politician is going to launch an openly racist attack on her for saying that not all Muslims are bad.

A month later, with Carson and Trump in a 2-man race, I reiterated the pick it would be Cruz vs Trump.

I think in 2011, Iowa's rotating leaders largely tracked with national polling and the same happens here. The only departure I recall was Santorum's last-minute surge in Iowa preceded his national one which didn't happen until a month into voting I think.

I do think Cruz is poised to surge in Iowa and maybe nationally too. He's winning over opinion leaders and Carson has a problem with fetal tissue research. As I speculated before, an entertaining scenario is Cruz trailing Trump the way Carson is now and on record as not wanting to attack other Republicans (but obviously prepared to do so).

Also, there was a thread on most likely person to be elected president in 2016. Obviously, it's always been Hillary but some people made very wrong predictions and I collected them for fun last summer.

The wrongests!

1. Jeb Bush

Also, I don't think Hillary is going to run, though if she does, she of course keeps the strongest Democrat alternatives out of the race.

Taking all that into account:
1. Rand Paul

#2 Schweitzer
#5 Huntsman

1. Chris Christie

Anybody have a different opinion after the midterms?

1. Scott Walker
2. Ted Cruz
3. Hillary Clinton

1. Rob Portman
2. Scott Walker
3. Hillary Clinton
Obviously if by some miracle Hillary doesn't run then all bets are off.

Bush, Walker, Ryan, Paul, Kasich, in no particular order

1. John Kasich

1. Jeb Bush

1. Paul
159  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who will be Trump's VP? Will most of shortlist names reject it? on: December 17, 2015, 04:28:50 pm
I really doubt he'd pick Cruz. I mean, he might, if Cruz really guns for the position and Trump just makes a really impulsive choice. But he really needs to pick someone at least amenable to the establishment. More importantly, someone who won't offend moderates. He needs someone who can both double down on the Trump message of anti-political correctness and economic populism, and add some credibility to the ticket. A pragmatic voice who can realistically say "maybe Donald and I don't agree on everything, but damn if he isn't what America needs right now." And probably someone slightly younger than him, since he is nearing 70.

The only current candidate who even comes close to fitting that is Chris Christie.

I agree with most of this but not the part about being palatable to the establishment. I think Jim Webb is a much smarter pick than Christie, and potentially much more dangerous to Hillary, but not sure Webb would accept. Maybe he's motivated to get revenge on the Democrats for the primary. Even Carson, though plainly unprepared in several debates with a huge audience,  continues to perform well in general election polling, better than Christie though Christie hasn't been polled in a general a while that I recall. I think Christie fails the standard VP test of Do No Harm.

Cruz isn't a good pick if Trump wins the nomination decisively but if party leaders have some success conspiring to push Rubio or trigger a floor fight, there is a scenario where Trump needs to offer Cruz VP to secure the nomination.

A LOT of New England hates Tom Brady.

Really? This can't be true.
160  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Voters don't care about a VP candidate being from a state that borders their own on: December 16, 2015, 09:18:15 pm
Forget neighbor state. No nominee in the modern era of primaries has chosen a running mate to flip their own state and there's no real evidence it helps. Yet for some reason people think it will be a or the major factor in the choice.  If Hillary is undecided between Tim Kaine and someone else, maybe the tiebreaker would be that Kaine might be able to boost her by 1% in Virginia but it won't be a major factor.

The other popular misconception is that we already know what the shape of the race will be come July and what political needs nominees will need to address. Whether Hillary is up by 8 or downy 2 and against whom and demographic polling and enthusiasm might influence her choice.
161  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: These Three in NH on: December 16, 2015, 01:57:34 pm
Will any of them crack the top 3 or survive NH?

Rubio is starting to get attacked more than he has been, and Christie will likely step up attacks on Rubio as NH nears. Rubio will retaliate and Bush will hit both, with Christie being the easier target, no pun intended. At this point, no one is bothering to go after Bush or Kasich because they're not threats, except for Trump who does it just for fun it seems. But with lucky timing, this isn't crazy:



So I wuh nuh bruh this ranking.
162  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Amy Klobuchar for VP? on: December 16, 2015, 12:44:48 pm
TOP TIP: Veep choices don't help tickets, although they have been known to hurt them. Nobody has ever changed their vote because one veep candidate represents the state adjacent to them.

In this thread, we agree.
163  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Let's be 100% serious here for a moment: on: December 16, 2015, 12:42:28 pm
It's very easy to vote against a war when you're some backbench nobody from a state nobody has ever heard of (much like it was very easy for Barack Obama to vote against the debt ceiling as an Illinois junior senator,but not when he was in office). What about the decisions now? On every foreign policy issue of any possible relevance to 2016 - the pivot to Asia, Russia's adventures in Ukraine, NATO expansion, the CIA and the creep of military intelligence, militarised drones, ISIS and the rise of Salafism, the Iran-Saudi proxy war, nuclear weaponry, Korea, Israel/Palestine - I have seen no real distinction between him and any other generic democrat. The only thing I've seen is protectionism, because Vietnamese people deserve unemployment and poor working rights, I guess.

I mean, not that I support, say, the sudden abolition of NATO; but it is a bit disingenuous of Sanders to dress himself up as the most left-wing thing since nationalised sliced bread factories, and then parade a foreign policy essentially identical to Obama's and Clinton's.

I think what's disingenuous is Clinton decrying the Iraq War to be a huge mistake as if she wasn't one of the ones who made it. Not sure if the implication is Sanders voted against Iraq solely for political posturing or Clinton should be excused for her vote because voting against an idiotic war would be politically hard, but it doesn't matter since either point is ridiculous. The Iraq War wasn't simply one of several foreign policy decisions from over a decade ago. To get back to the OP, it was a catastrophic mistake that made everything worse, paved the way for ISIS and continues to create instability. Clinton got it wrong. Sanders got it right. Their judgement matters. And yes, if Trump is nominee, there's an argument that Sanders is a stronger nominee for the Democrats. Not only because of Iraq, but also on trade, independence from big donors and voter enthusiasm.
164  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Ted Cruz may have released classified information during debate on: December 16, 2015, 12:14:17 pm
WOW, if true there has to be repercussions, that JUST CAN'T HAPPEN. PERIOD.

I'll save my judgement until it is proven that he did and not just an educated guess at this time.

Should we assume you feel Rubio should face the same repercussions?

https://www.emptywheel.net/2015/12/14/marco-rubio-leaks-classified-information-for-political-gain-again/

Quote
Last week, Marco Rubio leaked the classified detail that the new metadata program authorized by USA Freedom Act obtains records from a large number of companies. Yesterday, he leaked more classified details about the program, revealing that some of the companies in question arent subject to FCC regulations on phone companies (which require companies hold records for 18 months).
165  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Let's be 100% serious here for a moment: on: December 16, 2015, 11:49:54 am
Soon the American people will have to make their choice. A vote for Donald Trump, a vote for peace at home and abroad or a vote for Hillary Clinton, a vote for war and human suffering.

Democrats need to realize what a hawk Hillary is before she gets the nomination. Because if it only happens after she gets the nomination, turnout will be quite poor for Democratic nominee Hillary.

remind me again what Bernie Sanders has been saying about his foreign policy views? Oh yes *crickets*

Because he's actually just as if not more hawkish than Clinton.  But don't let that stop Sandernistas from projecting their own views onto Jewish Jesus.

a. the first Jesus was Jewish
b. Sanders opposed the Iraq War so maybe not "just as if not more hawkish"

Look, I know that Sandernistas tend to be pretty low-information voters, but for real "DID THEY SUPPORT THE IRAQ WAR LOL" is a terrible way to judge a candidate's foreign policy stance.

Actually, I think the low-information voter is the one would says the candidate who voted against the Iraq War is as or even more hawkish than the candidate who voted for it. For one thing, they may not know what the word hawkish means.


166  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Let's be 100% serious here for a moment: on: December 16, 2015, 10:40:50 am
Soon the American people will have to make their choice. A vote for Donald Trump, a vote for peace at home and abroad or a vote for Hillary Clinton, a vote for war and human suffering.

Democrats need to realize what a hawk Hillary is before she gets the nomination. Because if it only happens after she gets the nomination, turnout will be quite poor for Democratic nominee Hillary.

remind me again what Bernie Sanders has been saying about his foreign policy views? Oh yes *crickets*

Because he's actually just as if not more hawkish than Clinton.  But don't let that stop Sandernistas from projecting their own views onto Jewish Jesus.

a. the first Jesus was Jewish
b. Sanders opposed the Iraq War so maybe not "just as if not more hawkish"
167  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Let's be 100% serious here for a moment: on: December 16, 2015, 09:47:24 am
Soon the American people will have to make their choice. A vote for Donald Trump, a vote for peace at home and abroad or a vote for Hillary Clinton, a vote for war and human suffering.

Democrats need to realize what a hawk Hillary is before she gets the nomination. Because if it only happens after she gets the nomination, turnout will be quite poor for Democratic nominee Hillary.

remind me again what Bernie Sanders has been saying about his foreign policy views? Oh yes *crickets*

He's been saying what Lief is celebrating Trump saying: much of the mess in the Mideast today stems from the terrible decision to invade Iraq.
168  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Its Cruz, not Trump, who looks more like favorite to win GOP nomination on: December 16, 2015, 12:51:55 am
Cruz looks to have an excellent shot at winning Iowa, placing second, albeit a distant second in New Hampshire and then winning South Carolina.  If that happens, he'll likely get the establishment to coalesce around him as the anti-Trump and win the nomination.  Trump needs to keep his opposition from coalescing around a single candidate until it's too late.  Too soon to say what'll happen.

The irony is in a scenraio where the early states are won only by Cruz and Trump forcing the establishment to rally to Cruz to stop Trump, the establishment has already been proven incapable of stopping anything.

If Cruz wins Iowa and Trump New Hampshire, either winning South Carolina seems likely. It'd be a critically important state to put one ahead. Would they still play nice?
169  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Amy Klobuchar for VP? on: December 15, 2015, 11:59:33 pm
Running mates don't really help win states and aren't chosen to do so. It's still hard to guess when it's still unclear who the GOP nominee will be and what the race will look like in 7 months. If Hillary isn't generating enough the expected enthusiasm from women, she'd conceivably be open to a female running mate to kickstart it.
170  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Amy Klobuchar for VP? on: December 15, 2015, 01:03:03 pm
Klobuchar's not as bad of a choice as the Castros.  At least it's not irresponsible.
But there's not much logic to it either.  If Klobuchar was a man she wouldn't even be getting brought up.  Know how I know?  Because her fellow senator from Minnesota is Al Franken, they've both been in the senate the same amount of time, and nobody ever mentions Franken as VP.

Tim Kaine will be the VP if Clinton has any sense.  He's the obvious, responsible choice who's fully qualified, a strong addition to the ticket personality- and talent-wise, and fills in many of Clinton's weaknesses.

I actually think Kaine is a better comparison to someone with Klobuchar's profile but male than Franken is so I think you end up proving the opposite point you were trying to make. Some people think Virginia being an important swing state is an argument in Kaine's favor but I actually think again the opposite is true; the fact that it's purple makes it harder for an appointee to hold his senate seat. (It's come up before and I think the law dictates there'd be a 2017 special election, then the regular in 2018.) Minnesota is less of a risk to elect a Republican senator. I think Hillary is unlikely to pick a female running mate unless 7 months from now, she's posting a big lead in polls.
171  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Can Rubio win without New Hampshire? on: December 14, 2015, 01:33:29 pm
Certainly there are examples of candidates who stay viable late into the primary season, even winning some critical states along the way, but how many actually went on to win? People point to Santorum in 2012, who suddenly won MN, CO and MO and then won a few states on Super Tuesday... but he still lost! Same with Gingrich who lost IA and NH and then surged in South Carolina. Or the "pair of silver medals" that Romney claimed in 2008, like Mikado said. Yeah he went on to still some states... but he still lost the nomination!! In 2004, Edwards and Clark were able to pick up Oklahoma and South Carolina (which was on Super Tuesday at the time, instead of before it) without winning any of the early states, but that didn't translate into the nomination, or even bring them anywhere close. People who win the nomination win the early states.

Bill Clinton's the archetypical example of someone who lost the first four states yet won the nomination. He only came in second in one of the four, even. He only won one of the first eleven states.

Other than that, you could include McGovern, but things were different back then.

Clinton was able to do that because all first four were won by different candidates.  If Trump goes 4 for 4, it's over.

Not just that but Iowa was ignored as a gimme for a favorite son whereas Clinton winning the first Southern state was celebrated as momentum.

Anyway, the South, among other issues, prefers southern candidates over Yankees they view with suspicion. Clinton from Arkansas picked up his first win in the South, and, like I say above, so did John Edwards from North Carolina after Kerry swept Iowa and New Hampshire. So did Georgia's Gingrich, surging into first in SC after Romney was thought to have swept both. Rubio may be from the southernmost city in the continental US, but I'll be damned if he's southern. But Cruz is and even though he's from Queens, Trump is an honorary southerner on account of his racism.
172  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Its Cruz, not Trump, who looks more like favorite to win GOP nomination on: December 14, 2015, 10:08:22 am
Cillizza, Dec 13, 2015

Quote
Cruzs money is also what separates him from other candidates who secured the mantle of most conservative candidate in the primary. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and former senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum won the Iowa caucuses during past campaigns more on Cruz and Iowa below but they were unable to capitalize on that win or sustain their support because they had so little money.

Cruz is the best-case scenario for those who want to see a movement conservative nominated: Hes of the conservative movement but has the fundraising ability of an establishment Republican.

7 months ago...

Only one Ted Cruz vote?

Here's why her's underrated:

Movement conservatives and social conservatives are Cruz-Crazy.

They're a big factor in Iowa, where Cruz may be better positioned than anyone but the fragile Walker

It's true Huckabee and Santorum didn't convert Iowa wins into nominations but Huckabee had a real chance to win South Carolina. If he had, who knows? Santorum only won by 8 votes and wasn't even known to be the winner until Gingrich was already leading or closing in on Romney in South Carolina.

He'd have fewer hurdles than Huckabee who wasn't just rejected by the establishment but also some anti-establishment opinion leaders like Limbaugh who railed against Huckabee (but loves Cruz). He's a much, much better fundraiser than either Huckabee or Santorum.

Yeah the establishment would work hard to stop Cruz if he won Iowa, but it's not clear to me they could. Even less clear if he wins both Iowa and South Carolina.

I also talked up how the calendar helps him somewhere but I can't find it.

But Cillizza doesn't argue against Trump's strength just for Cruz's. He just says "Trump being Trump has problems" which pundits (including him) have said all year only to watch him grow his lead. Trump has an even bigger lead in the other early states than Cruz has in Iowa, also has strong appeal in the South and can spend as much as he chooses to. If Iowa and New Hampshire went as polls now show, either one of them could plausibly win South Carolina, the subsequent southern states or the nomination. It could even be a long 2-man race like Obama vs Clinton.
173  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Subjective Odds that candidates win the nomination (8/15) on: December 13, 2015, 08:10:57 pm
Christie 35%
Trump 30%
Cruz 25%
Rubio 8%
Carson 1%
Field 1%

Because he cracked 10% in 2 NH polls (one of which has him in 4th place, and as close to 6th as 2nd)? Is that why everyone's betting on Christie?


The debate showed that Cruz (despite my personal objections) has at the very least 5 times as high an IQ as Cruz
174  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Requirement for next debate on: December 13, 2015, 07:35:28 pm
Jindal would have qualified
175  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Paul suggests he might quit if not let into main CNN debate [or maybe not] on: December 13, 2015, 02:26:58 pm
He's invited for some reason.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 138


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines