Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2015, 07:48:38 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 ... 112
151  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who is Next in Line? on: November 16, 2014, 11:42:13 am
We could easily see a Huckabee vs Romney contest, and if so you won't convince me Next-in-Line isn't a thing.
152  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: DEMOCRATS ONLY: Who would you vote for in the primary? on: November 15, 2014, 12:44:34 pm
Ehh what a list. Two butch old ladies and a no-name unpopular liberal Governor. Young people are definitely gonna wait in line six hours.


Seriously?

I predict in 2 years these 2 posts will be a nice microcosm of how the GOP motivated turnout of women.

As a separate point, you won't find a candidate in America who would motivate young voters to turnout more than Warren would. Won't be surprised if she's on the VP shortlist, especially after Sanders and others rile up the base during the primary. Not the best use of Warren in my opinion but she'd be a better pick than the large majority of suggestions you see around here.
153  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: DEMOCRATS ONLY: Who would you vote for in the primary? on: November 15, 2014, 10:33:23 am
Warren keeps saying she's not running. Yeah, Christie said the same thing 4 years ago more emphatically before almost changing his mind, but knowing what we now do about Christie's credibility, that was a whole other animal. No reason to think Warren is running.

But I'm skeptical Hillary is a stronger general election candidate than Warren. She actually has a lot of problems that Warren avoids. I also don't take polls this early seriously; Hillary is so much better known than any other Democrat, her head-to-head polling reflects that. A lot of people thought it was too risky to nominate Obama before he won by 7 points. But again, Warren's not running.
154  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Paul: Unclear if Clinton can handle "rigorous physical ordeal" of 2016 campaign on: November 13, 2014, 01:51:31 am
Since and including Reagan, half of the GOP nominees were older than Hillary. W was the only one younger than mid-60s.
155  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will the GOP try to steal 2016 like they did 2000? on: November 11, 2014, 07:45:01 pm
Quote
Gore didn't want a full recount, he wanted a recount of Palm Beach and Miami-Dade.

And perhaps some of the erstwhile Atlasians can demonstrate exactly why he chose those two counties. Wink

Yes, Gore chose the counties where he thought his votes were undercounted but consistently maintained a statewide recount was completely acceptable to him. A subsequent study showed that even a comprehensive statewide recount would likely have changed the result and made Gore president. That's besides the effect of the confusing butterfly ballot that also blocked Gore from winning Florida.

But regardless of what the result would have been, the reason Supreme Court stopped the recount was the exact same reason Katherine Harris certified the vote count when she did, Bush's cousin started the chain reaction of networks calling Florida for Bush, and Republican operatives attempted to intimidate election workers from completing their recount: in order to get Bush elected.

And of course, the Republican Party has been working the past couple years to prevent minorities from voting.

Whatever disagreements, it's deeply delusional to equate 9/11 conspiracy theories with the idea that more Floridians voted for Gore than for Bush or that the election was stolen.

EDIT: Excuse the overlap. Missed Harry's post while I was writing. He put it better than I did.
156  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Scott Walker seems boring and mediocre to me on: November 11, 2014, 02:53:56 pm
Dole didn't lose because he was boring. The only one who arguably did was Gore, who got more votes than the folksy Bush. Not persuaded personality make a huge difference in the general. Or even the primary. McCain beat Huckabee and Giuliani after all. Walker can win as well.

I'd guess the jump from college degree to graduate degree filters out a lot of people who reject science and evidence-based reasoning, hence Democrats winning them.
157  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Christie: end political contribution limits on: November 08, 2014, 10:21:13 pm
No GOP candidate will take a different position on donation limits but I wonder if any will go further and say if you're citing First Amendment rights to support unlimited donations, it also supports anonymous donations.
158  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Current ticket predictions? on: November 08, 2014, 10:11:51 pm
Clinton/Warner Kaine vs. Walker/Martinez

Question on Tim Kaine as VP…

When Lautenberg died, Christie had some discretion for the length of the appointment. Would McAuliffe be able to appoint a replacement for the last two years of Kaine's term or does Virginia law force a senate special election in 2017? If it's the latter, that is a big disincentive to having Kaine as VP: a good chance of one less Democratic senator in her 2nd year. Not as important as winning the presidential election is, but still important and no one here seems to understand that, in the last 50 years, running mates have won elections for the top of the ticket zero times. Kaine (or anyone else) is overwhelmingly likely to have the same non-effect. But if his replacement could serve 2 years, sure, Kaine is a decent pick.
159  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which of the 6 GOP candidates highly valued by Betfair will run? on: November 08, 2014, 02:27:21 pm
All of those except maybe Paul will stand aside for Romney.

Are you thinking of Paul Ryan?
160  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primary Poll (No Hillary/Biden) - November 2014 on: November 07, 2014, 07:13:15 pm
What is with this place? There are a lot of interesting things to talk about in the wake of Tuesday- like how Walker being re-elected, and the GOP winning the senate affect 2016… why are people starting threads pretending Brian Sandoval running for president or Hillary not running are realistic possibilities? Also, who cares whether Martin O'Malley is pretty or not. What is wrong with you people?
161  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rank the top five most likely people to be elected POTUS in November 2016 on: November 07, 2014, 02:08:18 pm
After Hillary, I still think the next 5 or more Republicans are about equal in likelihood to get elected president. I'd have to factor in chance of running and leave off Romney, Pence who still seem unlikely to run, Bush, Kasich, Rubio who still seem close to 50/50, Huckabee who seems likely but with info too hard to trust. Guess until the field clears up, I'd go...

2. Cruz
3. Walker
4. Paul
5. Christie
162  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What will Brian Sandoval do? on: November 07, 2014, 01:42:48 pm
Move this to congressional board.
163  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Mitch McConnell backs Rand Paul for 2016 on: November 07, 2014, 01:18:41 pm
Congrats to Rand Paul for selling out and becoming a pawn of Mitch McConnell and the establishment in exchange for political favors.  He doesn't deserve all the credit, though. Papa Ron's brilliant use his of debate time and money to attack Perry and Santorum and not even look Romney in the eye was certainly also given consideration.



Yes. Just like I said 2 years ago and I think you agreed. Ron Paul entire campaign was making sure his son is one of the frontrunners for 2016.

More evidence Ron Paul's focus is on helping Rand's campaign

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/04/ron-paul-gop-senate-takeover-means-more-neocon-wars/

http://www.mediaite.com/online/ron-paul-the-u-s-government-knew-911-was-going-to-happen/
164  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Midterms impact on Christie's chances at the nomination? on: November 06, 2014, 10:36:37 am
Meh ... we always hear how the primary electorate is more conservative, but I think we are a bit too influenced by the crazies who attend the debates and yell on TV.  Time after time, the far right candidate doesn't get the nomination.  Ted Cruz is most certainly far right.  Plus, he'll split votes with some SoCon populist (who then has the nerve to call another Republican a RINO!  LOL) like Huckabee or Santorum or Palin and probably another Tea Partier, too.  Then you have Rand taking away votes ... the "Establishment" will rally behind one candidate earlier than the rest, IMO.

They generally don't get the nomination because they split votes amongst each other. In in a pure McCain vs Huckabee and Romney vs Santorum election from Iowa on with no other candidates, I think Huckabee and Santorum would've won or at least dragged it on like Clinton-Obama.  Hangers-on like Perry and Gingrich made it easier Romney to advance.

I think Ted Cruz is dangerous because he could be a unifying voice among the far-right. For has crazy as he can be ideological, he doesn't make actual gaffes and he's such a dominant presence that he would stop any other conservative on his level from running.

The far right candidate loses 'time after time" if you literally mean 2008 and 2012, the 2 times when the GOP nomination was remotely as open as it now is. And if you look closer…

Huckabee 2008 was no Cruz. He was a very poor fundraiser. Cruz is very good. And his non-social policies were considered liberal by many conservatives. Kasich is a better comparison for Huckabee 2016 than Cruz.

In 2012, even with splitting, what was the moment the 2012 field was stacked with the most conservatives? Before Herman Cain dropped out. Before he did so, he polled with big leads even with all those conservatives in the race. And before that Rick Perry polled even bigger leads with all those conservatives in the race. Conservatives are better at unifying around a candidate than people here seem to understand. And the reason they each collapsed had nothing to do with splitting. For Rick Perry, it had to do with his being too liberal on immigration and then a bad debater/campaigner. For Cain, it had to do with a sex scandal. Then when there were fewer, Gingrich was sunk by corruption. And Santorum was hobbled by Gingrich refusing to quit but also by being a bad candidate who said he didn't care what the unemployment rate was.

Cruz has none of the problems that sank past conservatives. It doesn't mean he'll win. But it does mean their winning matters now.
165  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Are O'Malley and Warner done (for President/VP)? on: November 05, 2014, 11:05:45 am
Warner would have been a better pick if he'd lost. I'm assuming Hillary is too smart to pick a sitting senator.

Being boring or the Democratic nominee in Maryland losing yesterday aren't real problems, but the Maryland exchange rollout is something of a problem for O'Malley. I still expect him to run for and break the record for the fewest negative things said about his opponent with zero.

But I'm the first person (in the world?) to call Gary Locke as Hillary's VP. Now look at the drop-off of the Asian vote for Dems yesterday.
166  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton vs. Walker map on: November 05, 2014, 01:43:49 am
Really similar to Any Democrat vs. Any Republican
167  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2016 Republican Nomination Poll - November 2014 on: November 05, 2014, 12:28:50 am
Walker's odds which would have been killed by a loss is likely the favorite now. But I'd argue Ted Cruz's stock rose tonight too.  He's more conservative than Walker and I bet can give Walker a run for his money in Iowa. Iowan Republicans nominated as an extreme conservative as they could and successfully flipped a state that Romney and McCain had lost in. To go with Steve King in the House.
168  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2016 Republican Nomination Poll - November 2014 on: November 01, 2014, 06:47:18 pm
I really don't think anyone has a better than 10% chance to win the nomination. This might be the last month that's true since it's partly a factor of so much confusion as to who runs. But even as the field takes shape, possible late entrants like Pence and unknown variable keep things volatile. 4 years ago, Pawlenty was one of two establishment-approved candidates, and the one who was more conservative and evangelical instead of Mormon. By August, he was out, Perry was in and on his way to double digit leads. A few weeks later, Christie who would had been, stronger than Shermanesque even, seemed about 50/50 to jump in. And this cycle is even harder to predict.
169  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The two-years and one week out prediction. on: October 30, 2014, 12:35:52 pm
Hillary defeats Republican nominee by a margin determined by who they nominate

So you think Hillary can't be beaten?


It's not an opinion

Come on, elections can't be proven with certainty 2 years off.  There are too many possible factors at play.  An economic crash would turn the election into a tailspin.

A crash requires a bubble. That's not going to happen.

Also, it's simplistic to think the laws of politics apply equally to all in and out parties or that a crash now would just create an inverse 2008. The Democrats' brand heading into 2008, pre-crash, was nowhere near as tainted as the GOP's now is. The GOP brand heading into 2008 was more fragile than the Democrats' brand now is. Nor would Hillary's strengths be diminished by a crash the way McCain's were. Also, Palin won't happen again.
170  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Palin may run in 2016 on: October 30, 2014, 11:25:35 am
It's fairly plausible she'd run as an Independent if Bush or Christie is the GOP nominee.
171  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is the RGA (meaning Christie) shortchanging Walker? on: October 28, 2014, 04:33:42 am
All I'm trying to do is take credit for calling? Is that so wrong? I never meant to revive an annoying, useless Christie vs Walker poll. I guess this good prediction is negated by my not realizing everyone would just ignore this story and keep sharing their irrelevant preference for one or the other.

Probably Walker, though I still believe (maybe foolishly) that Huntsman could make a run at it. I really doubt Bush will run.

fwiw, Huntsman is essentially saying he suspects Christie knew and is now lying.

I'd guess Bush is more likely to run than not right now. I assume Christie's strength was one of the major deterrents to Bush pre-Bridgegate.  Won't be surprised if he starts courting donors keeping a nervous eye on Christie's scandals.

Walker losing re-election would be good news for Christie, the head of the RGA. Keep an eye out for  subtle ways Christie tries to undercut Walker.
172  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republicans Only: Chris Christie vs Scott Walker on: October 27, 2014, 09:42:14 pm
One of the fun 2016 stories in 2014 is that Christie, as head of the Republican Governors Association, is tasked with trying to help Walker and Kasich get re-elected. And you can bet he'll pretend to be doing that with great gusto. But come on, if Burke and FitzGerald do a good job responding to a hurricane days before the election, is Christie supposed to not say so?

Probably Walker, though I still believe (maybe foolishly) that Huntsman could make a run at it. I really doubt Bush will run.

fwiw, Huntsman is essentially saying he suspects Christie knew and is now lying.

I'd guess Bush is more likely to run than not right now. I assume Christie's strength was one of the major deterrents to Bush pre-Bridgegate.  Won't be surprised if he starts courting donors keeping a nervous eye on Christie's scandals.

Walker losing re-election would be good news for Christie, the head of the RGA. Keep an eye out for  subtle ways Christie tries to undercut Walker.

Called it yet again.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/does-chris-christie-have-scott-walkers-back_816996.html

Quote
Why would the RGA spend more on Rick Snyder than Scott Walker? A number of top Wisconsin Republicans have expressed the same concern in separate conversations with THE WEEKLY STANDARD: That RGA chairman Chris Christie might be tanking Walker, a potential rival for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. As Republican governors who took on public employee unions in blue states, Christie and Walker would be chasing after some of the same donors and voters in the 2016 race (if both men decide to run). Knocking Walker out of the running now (while giving extra help to Rick Snyder, a governor of an important early GOP primary state) could be in Christie's interest.
173  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary: "Businesses don't create jobs" on: October 27, 2014, 09:35:22 pm
As expected, she's already taken this back. Also, it's weird that Ice Spear posted this gaffe and no one here commented on it for 24 hours.
174  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary: "Businesses don't create jobs" on: October 27, 2014, 08:08:19 pm
She's a former Republican in fact.

Mind you that Hillary is also a former Republican. Tongue

Yeah, when she was a kid. Warren was a Republican until middle age. The "I didn't leave the party, the party left me" thing is an easier play if the change didn't happen during your teenage years. But that's all besides the point. I agree Hillary appeals to centrist voters. My point was Warren would also have more appeal to them than everyone here seems to understand. Not just because, like many people who have voted Democrat in the past couple years, she's a former Republican. But because her views are much more mainstream than people realize.
175  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary: "Businesses don't create jobs" on: October 27, 2014, 06:45:36 pm
It's not clear gaffes have any effect. I'm not even sure Romney's 47% did and that was less than 2 months before the election not more than two years. It also came with the added power of being secretly recorded and confirming an image of him in a way this doesn't for Hillary. (Her image is being too corporate friendly.)

What I find interesting about this gaffe is it came in the same speech where Clinton was showering Warren with praise and came a day or two after Warren's Shermanesque denials of a run became a version "I don't think I'll run but maybe". It seems an obvious response to that development.  Clinton was working to not just butter Warren upend win her over but also to co-opt her populism to make a Warren run unnecessary. It's kind of funny that now Clinton and Obama have both tried to emulate Warren's "You didn't really succeed alone" riff in their presidential campaigns but in doing so, went much further to the left in their rhetoric than Warren, whose original was actually pretty moderate and in tune with mainstream opinion. Warren, in an actual campaign, would have way more appeal to moderate voters than people here are now realizing. She's a former Republican in fact.

It's a bit alarming that Hillary was so sloppy months after her dead broke gaffe but, again, I assume she'll become more disciplined as she does it more.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 112


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines