Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 28, 2015, 02:49:28 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 118
151  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Current ticket predictions? on: April 26, 2015, 12:32:45 pm
Lincoln Chafee/Mark B Graham

v.

Mark Everson/George Pataki

Why would Mark B Graham accept the VP slot?
152  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: More shady Clinton foundation stuff uncovered on: April 26, 2015, 12:31:08 pm
Adam, how has the conflict of interest been debunked?

I agree the Republican candidates have done comparable things and in the cases of Bush and Walker they've been covered by the media. What really makes Hillary Clinton different is that her and Bill Clinton are more famous than any Republican candidate so covering this new revelation means more business for them. That may be a greedy motive but it's not the same as an anti-Hillary bias. The Christie camp was alleging bias with the deluge of Bridgegate coverage but the reality was probably it just got viewers and clicks.

1.Please reread what I wrote. I said everything "except the potential conflict of interest" has been debunked.  The potential for conflict of interest is obvious on its face.  

Sorry, I did misread that.

2.I've not seen any national media reports of this on Walker at all, and the coverage of Bush has certainly not been the feeding frenzy it is with HRC. The most recent story on Walker I've seen is that he must be a great Christian because he is the son of a preacher man.

And your point is taken here too. I have read stories about similar behavior from Walker, Bush Rubio but it hasn't gotten anywhere near the national and frenetic energy the coverage of this has. And a GOP candidate's landing of a billionaire donor is reported as a boost in the horserace rather than a conflict of interest just like the one they are freaking out over here. That is true.
153  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: More shady Clinton foundation stuff uncovered on: April 26, 2015, 10:16:10 am
Adam, how has the conflict of interest been debunked?

I agree the Republican candidates have done comparable things and in the cases of Bush and Walker they've been covered by the media. What really makes Hillary Clinton different is that her and Bill Clinton are more famous than any Republican candidate so covering this new revelation means more business for them. That may be a greedy motive but it's not the same as an anti-Hillary bias. The Christie camp was alleging bias with the deluge of Bridgegate coverage but the reality was probably it just got viewers and clicks.

It's been clear for a while Hillary is in major ways a mismatch for the moment; she's a poor messenger on income inequality, corporate influence on Washington, and distaste for DC. But all that said, no non-incumbent has ever been better positioned to cruise to the nomination and it happens to be for the party with the advantage for 2016.

EDIT: Also, while I don't think Hillary is the best messenger for the Democrats, I don't think it will be a problem for her because despite her own wealth and, say, Walker talking about Kohl's every few seconds, she has an easy case that his policies prioritize people of her income level and hers favor people who shop at Kohl's.
154  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: More shady Clinton foundation stuff uncovered on: April 26, 2015, 06:56:36 am
rand is ok, that's an impressive job finding effective quotes I have to admit but, in the same vein as Adam T's reply, the justices you quote voting to pry the hands of deep-pocketed donors off the levers of policy creating are all liberals, 2 of them appointed by Bill Clinton. I agree there was a conflict of interest here (with or without clear quid pro quo) and would even prefer another nominee with less of these issues, but I also have zero doubt Hillary winning the nomination with or without my primary vote. But I also know she will appoint Supreme Court justices I prefer and presumably either be a much better choice than the Republican nominee to advance rules to reduce the influence of money in politics, or only equally bad.
155  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Snyder set to announce soon. on: April 25, 2015, 06:33:12 pm
How is Santorum second tier after 2012?

Because he's currently polling around 1-2%.

Right, I'm speaking strictly about who are more likely to make or miss a polling cut-off for the debates if those are used.
156  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Snyder set to announce soon. on: April 25, 2015, 05:06:07 pm
But... with a minimum of 3% in the polls, are we still looking at 10+ candidates in the debates?

Where you are getting the 3% number from? In 2012 it was 1% for the earliest debates, and 2% later in the season.

I thought there was no set standard for whom to invite but that when polling was used, 1% was the cut-off throughout the whole primary season. A threshold of 2% or higher and your stage might only include: Bush, Walker, Rubio, Cruz, Paul, Christie, Huckabee, Trump, Carson, Perry. The second division- Graham, Fiorina, Santorum, Jindal, Kasich, Snyder, Pataki, Erlich, Gilmore, Bolton- are at more risk to not make the cut.
157  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who should Hillary Clinton pick as her VP? Round 2 on: April 25, 2015, 11:56:15 am
This forum's obsession with Tim Kaine is annoying.

I know, right? He wouldn't be a bad pick, it's just that there's other good (better even) picks.

I find it also hard to believe that Clinton, who puts loyalty above all, would pick one of Obama's closest friends and confidants(sp?) as her VP. It seems to me that Kaine is used as a decoy while they vet other names.

What's the basis for thinking the Clintons have some grudge against Obama again?

Also, the fact that Kaine is a friend of Obama's actually makes that less likely they would feel betrayed by his endorsement in 2007. Besides which, he wasn't especially negative toward Hillary. And most of all, they're more interested in winning and then having a VP (and senate make-up) that helps her as prez than settling scores.

I don't quite understand the Bullock thing. Montana is a very small population state, Bullock is in his first term and, at least with Schweitzer, he demonstrated some fluency in international affairs. How is Bullock on foreign policy? Maybe but he feels like an odd pick. As opposed to Locke who was Ambassador to China while she ran State, has been a 2-term governor of a bigger state and Commerce Secretary.

Again, Heinrich risks forfeiting a seat so that's a no-go. Are millennials so dumb that they can't vote for someone who in their 50s or older? I bet they're not.

158  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Martin O'Malley lays down the law - uses profanity-laced attacks on Republicans on: April 25, 2015, 12:34:08 am
I can't find the article on the website, but one use of the word 'bullsh-" is hardly 'profanity-laced'. 

I hope you aren't a math teacher!

Yep. Who gives a sh--?
159  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: More shady Clinton foundation stuff uncovered on: April 25, 2015, 12:31:20 am
I dont understand why partisan Dems dont see the disaster that Hillary will be for their party. She might win, might have moderate coattails, but the long term damage she does to the party will be enormous. Can the Dem party in 2018 stand another 2014 or 2010 rout?

Thanks to 2010 and 2014, there is essentially no Dem bench in many states, OH and FL among them. How far down does the Dem party want to fall so that Hillary can be president?

The Republicans muckrake against any Democratic candidate. Hillary has these scandals but if Warren the Fake Cherokee or Biden the Plagiarist Groper or anyone else were the nominee, these same books would still get written with conspiracy theories surrounding everyone they've ever met. To think that simply subbing out Hillary will make it go away is rubbish.

Boring old John Kerry probably had the cleanest nose of any Democratic nominee of the past the century and he was completely trashed as a fake war hero and liar.

The conservative talk radio/Breitbart/Drudge circuits are skilled at smearing anyone. It's an effective way to rally the far right base at a grassroots level. The media--conservative, liberal, and neutral--love the idea of scandals because its good for ratings, so they tend to buy in on accusations.

The question Democrats have to ask if they want to succeed is not "who can we get that won't get tarnished in scandal?" but "who can we get that will be able to defend themselves against the attempts to tarnish them with scandal?" The best answer is Clinton.

Otherwise, you end up with John Kerry and George McGovern getting punched in the face repeatedly without much resistance.

This isn't really a made-up scandal like the swiftboat nonsense. As Jonathan Chait says in his column, even the good version of this is bad, but she'll probably get lucky when the GOP overplays it. In any case, yes, the Democrats would be better with a nominee who has fewer real problems. And there's no reason to think Warren or Klobuchar wouldn't fight back just as hard as they faced less credible accusations. But it won't change anything. Most Democrats aren't supporting Hillary because of her general election strength but because they like her. (In general, it's very doubtful most primary voters weight electability heavily in deciding how to cast their vote.) In any case, neither of those other two are running, and Klobuchar endorsed Hillary before she even got in.



160  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: More shady Clinton foundation stuff uncovered on: April 24, 2015, 10:08:19 am
As I've said all along, this stuff is a nuisance and she isn't the Democrats' strongest potential nominee but she'll win anyway.
161  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: Quinnipiac nat. poll: D: Clinton 60% Biden 10%; R: Rubio 15% Bush 13% Walker 11% on: April 23, 2015, 04:51:13 pm
Rubio announcement actually had good luck to not be overshadowed since Walker had just begun hiding from the media. Could be fun sparring between those two. While the Kochs have effectively endorsed Walker, Rubio is looking like the frontrunner in the Sheldon Adelson primary.

FWIW, Larry Sabato said yesterday that Jeb will easily outspend his primary opponents, or at least that seems to be the consensus among Republican operatives.

Yeah, I just mean there's more overlap in the kinds of voters Walker, Rubio and Cruz are chasing. They're not on even footing; Walker is the strongest but the bloodspot will be fun with Rubio and Cruz also having a lot of money at their disposal. But Bush will dominate fundraising and remains co-frontrunner with Walker.
162  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: Quinnipiac nat. poll: D: Clinton 60% Biden 10%; R: Rubio 15% Bush 13% Walker 11% on: April 23, 2015, 10:48:15 am
Rubio announcement actually had good luck to not be overshadowed since Walker had just begun hiding from the media. Could be fun sparring between those two. While the Kochs have effectively endorsed Walker, Rubio is looking like the frontrunner in the Sheldon Adelson primary.
163  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Potential Candidates in 2020 on: April 21, 2015, 09:34:53 am
There was a threat about this a few months ago:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=188084.0

Republicans in 2020:
Tom Cotton
Marco Rubio (Assuming he doesn't get the nomination in 16')
Rand Paul (Assuming he doesn't get the nomination in 16')
Scott Walker (Assuming he doesn't get the nomination in 16')
Ted Cruz (Assuming he doesn't get the nomination in 16')

Kelly Ayotte
Paul Ryan
Brian Sandoval


Going back 60 years, there have been 5 Republican non-incumbents who lost the general election: Nixon 60, Goldwater 64, Dole 96, McCain 08, Romney 12. Of those, Goldwater lost by over 20 points and 400 electoral votes. Dole and McCain, had they won next time around, would have turned 80 in their first term. So none were viable for the next cycle.

Nixon though was elected president next time he ran and Romney was leading most 2016 GOP polls and was a viable candidate. If Scott Walker (or Marco Rubio) is the 2016 nominee, they're well-positioned to be a or the frontrunner again in 2020, even with a general election loss up to 5 points. Cruz or Paul would be less likely because party leaders and FOX would gleefully pile on blaming the nominee of blowing it in a way they wouldn't with Walker (or Rubio). (If Bush loses the general election by the much, making it 3 moderate Republican losers in a row, the conservative wing is well-poisitioned for 2020.)

In other words, Scott Walker is in a great position to be the GOP's 2020 nominee if he is a strong 2016 runner-up but even if he is nominated and loses to Hillary. Unless he turns in a humiliating performance which feels like a distinct possibility.
164  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Top Christie ally defects to Bush on: April 21, 2015, 08:10:54 am
Don't forget McCain had already won New Hampshire the last open primary and was popular in South Carolina. Christie feels more like an accelerated version of the Giuliani collapse.

As far as how 2016 sets up 2020 for the GOP, if the 2016 nominee ends up Bush, I'd bet the 2020 frontrunner is the conservative who performed strongest in 2016. If the 2016 nominee is a conservative alt to Bush, I'd bet that person will again be the frontrunner for 2020.
165  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which GOP candidate has the best shot of winning (assuming they run) and why? on: April 20, 2015, 01:22:27 pm
Rubio. I just can't see Bush winning with all the data showing how unpopular he is.

It matters VERY little who the big wig elites in the republican part like. When those country clubbers go to the polls, they are counted as one person, just like everyone else. The majority of republican primary voters look at bush and smell a rat. Rubio, on the other hand, strikes a good balance.

Yeah, I'm thinking us here in Florida are going to decide basically which of the two are going home, it's do or die for Rubio and Bush here, and the data suggests at least for right now we're leaning towards Rubio more than Bush.

Polling shows Florida preferring Bush over Rubio actually. Also, one if not both of Bush and Rubio should be out before Florida.
166  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: sheldon whitehouse for vp on: April 20, 2015, 12:52:05 pm
Reed has ruled out VP. The VP nominee's purpose is not to expand the coalition or swing a state. It's to find someone who can be credibly defended as ready to be president, causes minimal to no controversy or image problems for her, can stay on message, acquit themelves well in the VP debate and not hand the GOP the senate.
167  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: sheldon whitehouse for vp on: April 20, 2015, 10:40:23 am
Not too bad actually. An experienced senator has been the norm for Democratic VP for a while- Bentsen, Gore, Lieberman, Biden. Edwards was the exception, and wasn't really any help. A lot of the senators people suggest around here either have less experience or risk losing a seat. Also, boring is fine.
168  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: CNN/ORC National Poll: Clinton leads Republicans by 14-24 points on: April 20, 2015, 10:29:07 am
A lot of Clinton Derangement Syndrome in this thread.

Go ahead and think that but the anti-Clinton brigade will have the last laugh when her victory margin is only between 4-14.
169  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How soon will Pres Hillary Clinton Bomb Iran on: April 19, 2015, 02:22:11 pm
In Libya and Syria, the existing government was trying to put down an uprising and Hillary favored the US arming and training rebels, and (at least in Libya) air strikes to support them. Smart or not as a policy (for the record, I think it was not) the reason that's not particularly relevant for Iran is that, much as there is a widespread desire among many Iranians to rid themselves of the Ayatollah, there is no uprising happening so Hillary isn't going to try to change the regime out of the blue. Nor is there a particular reason to think she'd be more likely than Obama or Bush to order strikes to impede their nuclear program when she herself has played a role in using diplomacy to impede a nuclear weapons program there. So yes, while it's possible if the inspections program broke down, she would consider military action, she hardly seems eager to be in that position. And anyone who thinks it's likely (as opposed to unlikely but possible) is fairly clueless. Whereas any Republican nominee besides Paul will have vowed to scrap the Iran deal and thus make war more likely. Which is yet another thing that will hurt the GOP in the general.

Edit: I actually am curious to hear the Paul vs the rest foreign policy debate in the GOP. But I am expecting it will cause him problems in the primary.
170  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How soon will Pres Hillary Clinton Bomb Iran on: April 19, 2015, 10:12:20 am
Sounds like the same kind of paranoid thinking that has Rand Paul warning against the secret and sinister NAFTA Superhighway.

Obviously, whatever you think of our intervention in Libya and proposed in Syria, there were already civil wars raging. Those cases are different than Iraq in 2003 (again, no real basis to think President Hillary would have invaded Iraq). And also different in that despite the GOP obsession with Benghazi and apparent indifference to Iraq, there about a thousand times as many dead in the latter. As for a war with Iran, Hillary as far as we know did not advocate US military intervention in 2009 when Iranian and Hezbollah forces were slaughtering Iranian  protestors. Nor is she advocating military force now but instead, as Obama's chief diplomat in his first term, played a role in negotiations that led us down the path to this deal that, as far as I can tell, Rand Paul is too scared to comment on. Even if he did, he flips so easily and quickly on questions of intervention what would it matter?

Hypothetically, Rand Paul strikes me as more dangerous for the Mideast because Hillary would have a greater ability to prevent a reckless air campaign by Netanyahu. But it's all academic because Paul has almost zero chance to be nominated.
171  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why do some Republicans hate President Obama that much? on: April 19, 2015, 07:28:51 am
The idea that the vitriolic hatred of Obama is at all comparable to that against Bush or Clinton is ridiculous.

And the idea you'd say that, utterly refusing to entertain a different narrative from people who weren't little kids during those Presidencies, is surprising to absolutely no one.

I remember them and the blind hatred of Obama is more severe. It's mixed with racism and sectarianism (with many or most Republicans believing Obama to be Muslim), voices similar to Limbaugh proliferating and becoming the primary source of news for conservatives. I can't recall a similar phenomenon happening as much or at all with previous presidents where Republican congressman are forced to change from supporting something to opposing it as soon as Obama supports it.
172  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rand Paul: Many in the GOP would have made the middle east worse than Obama has on: April 18, 2015, 08:16:03 pm
Angus King, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are all more or at least as hawkish as Paul, but who cares? Republican = SUCKS

How, for example, are Sanders and Warren as hawkish as Paul?
173  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Maximum Libertarian Performance on: April 18, 2015, 06:50:54 pm
I'd guess high single digits.
Could they challenge for second place in any state?

Maybe in New Mexico? I think Johnson's best performance (and third parties in general) would be in a Clinton/Bush race.
174  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Maximum Libertarian Performance on: April 18, 2015, 06:41:01 pm
I'd guess high single digits.
175  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rand Paul: Many in the GOP would have made the middle east worse than Obama has on: April 18, 2015, 05:35:23 pm
Quote
Rand Paul ripped into his hawkish rivals for the Republican nomination Saturday, suggesting that problems in the Middle East would actually be worse under them than President Barack Obama.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/rand-paul-slams-gop-hawks-117107.html#ixzz3XgmGnqzu

I cannot understand why an honest liberal would hate this man more than the other republican candidates. Yet it seems like there is no candidate that gets more hate and vitriol from the red avatars on this board than Rand Paul.

Elizabeth Warren just ruled out supporting Rand Paul or Ted Cruz for president.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 118


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines