Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 27, 2015, 01:08:19 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 ... 114
151  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Predict who will run on: December 16, 2014, 11:54:12 am
Democrats:
Kirsten Gillibrand
Jerry Brown
Elizabeth Warren
Brian Schweizer
Jim Webb
Luis Gutierrez
Amy Klobuchar
Martin O'Malley

Dem:
O'Malley
Webb
Sanders
Biden

We're still playing this game?
152  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Don't bet on Clinton faltering in Iowa a second time on: December 16, 2014, 04:01:29 am
Better hope she runs because if she does she'll be the only democrat i'll be voting for in 2016.

Not in the mood for Chief Warren, Biden or that aging socialist hippie sanders.

2 questions:
How long do your moods usually last?
Unless you're an elector from NY, who cares who you vote for?

These are irrelevant questions though. Hillary is running.
153  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2016 : Walker vs Hillary on: December 16, 2014, 01:39:49 am


Walker: 258
Clinton : 253
Tossup : 27

I agree. A computer using 1989 demographics would get this result.
154  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary or Warren... on: December 15, 2014, 09:45:38 pm
Warren has done more in the past few days to suggest she's considering a run than she has before. I still maintain she'd have a harder time winning a primary than a general. Not sure what the theory that she couldn't win a general election is based on. Maybe the same thing that drove the conventional wisdom that Obama was too liberal to win a general election. I actually think Warren would be a stronger nominee than Clinton against a Republican establishment candidate like Bush, Romney or Christie. Not sure that's true against an outsider Republican nominee but Warren would be favored against any of them regardless.

155  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Ted Cruz will win the Republican primary- My prediction on: December 14, 2014, 07:42:32 pm
I think Cruz has less of a chance than Huckabee or Santorum did in 2008 and 2012 respectively.

Huckabee and Santorum were different animals. Santorum was a default Romney alternative who only became a runner-up after all the other campaigns collapsed. Huckabee on the other hand, actually excited social conservatives. In that way, Cruz is more like Huckabee, but even stronger since he excites a wider range of conservatives. Still, it might be true that he has less of a chance than Huckabee in 2008 (mostly because he'll have Carson and others, maybe Huckabee in the race). But Huckabee actually had a decent chance to be the nominee in 2008. He almost won both Iowa and South Carolina. So Cruz can have less of a chance than Huckabee but still a pretty good chance to be the nominee.

156  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Romney runs, would he win the Republican nomination? on: December 11, 2014, 11:21:53 pm
If Romney runs, its because the establishment has no one else who's viable to turn to and begs him to run again.  In that case, he has a very good chance of winning.  I don't think that situation is likely, there isn't a shortage of establishment friendly candidates this time around (Christie and Bush are the big ones, but there's also Kasich, Walker, etc.).
 

This view doesn't jive with reports that big donors are trying to unite behind either Jeb, Christie or Romney, that Romney is lobbying donors to hold off on giving money to the others and that Romney worked hard in the midterms to collect chits. Romney won't need to be begged to get in. He'd be the favorite to raise the most money and so he has to be tempted. It's not that Romney would win the nomination but he won't run. It's that he won't run if he thinks he's unlikely to win. I'd say only if.
157  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: NC-PrimR: Carson leads at 19%, Hillary at 52% PrimD on: December 11, 2014, 02:59:01 pm
PPP = trash it.

PPP was consistently good in 2010-2012.
158  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NC-PPP: Hillary tied with, slightly up on Rs, Biden/Warren down on: December 11, 2014, 02:56:06 pm
Quote
Carson- 31/19

ummmm

I know PPP is a junk firm, but this is really something exceptional.

What sounds wrong about that? The people who know who Carson is are disproportionately Tea Party supporters. Also, his favorables benefit from not being perceived as a politician.

This poll matches other polls showing Carson polling as strong as or stronger than any Republican.
159  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If not Hillary then who? on: December 10, 2014, 02:20:38 pm
Biden or Gillibrand, I'd say.

No way in hell Warren wins a general election.

Warren could beat any Republican. It'd be much harder for her to beat Hillary than the Republican nominee. But she sounds unmoved by efforts to draft her. Unlike Hillary who is running.
160  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which Republican has the best leadership qualities? on: December 10, 2014, 02:18:13 pm
If Kasich has the best leadership qualities why hasn't his party followed him at all? I'll say Ted Cruz who has been more effective at influencing the GOP than any other 2016er.
161  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: So, what happened to Rubio? on: December 08, 2014, 03:08:21 am
Look at Rubio in the chart and scroll down.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

Currently he's behind Walker, Perry, and Carson.

What caused this?

Almost everybody is behind Carson. But to answer the question, immigration.
162  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: New Jersey legislature: no evidence that Christie was involved in bridge scheme on: December 05, 2014, 03:41:03 pm
People who have seen the report describe it as saying the investigation was widely stonewalled, no way to know exactly when Christie knew about lane closures, but has been dishonest about the timing of knowing other things.
163  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How would you currently rate the odds that Jeb Bush runs? on: December 05, 2014, 03:38:26 pm
About 80. He's been making moves.
164  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who would be the strongest non-Hillary female nominee for the Democrats? on: December 04, 2014, 01:43:04 pm
Clinton, Reagan and Obama were all very charismatic candidates who didn't need to be because they were elected as the out party candidate in bad economies. Bush Jr was more charismatic than Gore but it's debatable if he even won. Any female Democrat would produce a big gender gap, as Clinton is doing. Cruz, Carson, and Perry are not bland at all. You think they'd beat Klobuchar? I have long rejected the claim Hillary is the only Democrat who can win. I think over the course of a campaign Klobuchar's appeal to middle and lower class voters would prove sturdier. I don't see Hillary losing the nomination though and think she is favored to beat every Republican (as Klobuchar would be).

I also am still waiting to hear what about Warren would alienate moderate voters. Maybe just the label of very liberal would work because the voters are ultimately lazy participants and uniformed as 2014 showed again. But over the course of interviews and debates I think she'd be bad news for Republicans. Her views are mainstream.
165  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who would be the strongest non-Hillary female nominee for the Democrats? on: December 03, 2014, 10:52:23 pm
@BullMooseBase: All the losing candidates since 1980 sans John McCain say otherwise....but especially Mondale and Gore.

None lost because of blandness. Mondale lost because Reagan was an incumbent in a recovering economy. Gore lost because the Supreme Court and butterfly ballot weren't bland enough.

Why do people keep talking about blandness? I mean, if the GOP is going to nominate Ted Cruz or Ben Carson I don't want to talk them out of it but blandness is irrelevant and in the last 50 years, no presidential candidate has lost because of blandness. Elections are won on the economy and Klobuchar (and Warren) would have an easier time selling the message than Gillibrand or Hillary.

Tbh, I think some here mistake "blandness" for "lack of notoriety".  Gillibrand is better known to people because she's from New York, the successor to Clinton, and Gillibrand's leadership on the sexual assault in the military issue.  Klobuchar hasn't broken out of the pack to become one of the most well known Senators, therefore she's "bland".  It's curious logic, but it seems to be a thing with people.  Anyone who isn't that well known (and isn't an obvious nut) is "bland".

Right and as you've said, any major party nominee achieves close to 100% name recognition by the election.

And honestly, either major party running the first female presidential candidate would instantly toss whoever it was out of 'bland' territory in the eyes of the general public.

For sure.

Anyway… Klobuchar and Gillibrand have each done more to support a potential Hillary run than just about any other major office holder. Klobuchar (despite endorsing Obama in 2008) would be a feasible running mate if Hillary has a large enough lead (7?) to risk picking another woman.
166  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who would be the strongest non-Hillary female nominee for the Democrats? on: December 03, 2014, 07:36:37 pm
Why do people keep talking about blandness? I mean, if the GOP is going to nominate Ted Cruz or Ben Carson I don't want to talk them out of it but blandness is irrelevant and in the last 50 years, no presidential candidate has lost because of blandness. Elections are won on the economy and Klobuchar (and Warren) would have an easier time selling the message than Gillibrand or Hillary.
167  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who would be the strongest non-Hillary female nominee for the Democrats? on: December 03, 2014, 04:22:45 pm
A good share of the American electorate that Democrats need in order to win would probably find Elizabeth Warren, and her fiery liberal rhetoric, absolutely repulsive.

Which part of the electorate and which part of the rhetoric?
168  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2016 Republican Nomination Poll - December 2014 on: December 03, 2014, 02:59:29 pm
I'll say Jeb sticks to the family tradition: runs for president, edges out Huckabee with a Willie Horton ad, loses to a Clinton.
169  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who would be the strongest non-Hillary female nominee for the Democrats? on: December 03, 2014, 02:32:17 pm
How is Gillibrand, who has corporate ties, a husband works on Wall Street and defended Big Tobacco as a corporate lawyer, stronger than Klobuchar who is middle class and tougher on free trade? At best Gillibrand is as strong. I think Clinton is still favored to beat any Republican despite her vast wealth, clumsiness talking about it, corporate ties and Iraq War vote, but it's something of a problem.
170  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who would be the strongest non-Hillary female nominee for the Democrats? on: December 03, 2014, 12:57:17 am
Toss-up between Warren (more likely to stir base) and Gillibrand (more presentable to the mainstream).

The Klobuchar hard-sell is hilarious to me - like people trying to convince themselves the girl at Dairy Queen is hotter than Katy Perry. Very generic candidate from state that consistently produces presidential losers.

What is it about talking about female candidates that can't stay away from a conversation about comparing looks, even if in a convoluted way? In any case, I think it's more like convincing yourself the stronger candidate is the woman who was more likely to have talked to the girl at the Dairy Queen today than to Katy Perry. Klobuchar is middle-class herself or a lot closer to it than Hill or Gill. You think it's ridiculous that a Minnesotan could win because Mondale lost? In any event, both Gillibrand and Klobuchar have already endorsed Hillary.
171  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Portman says no to presidential race on: December 02, 2014, 11:22:58 pm
Time to enjoy this 3 week old declaration that Portman was the #1 most likely person to be elected president in 2016.

1. Rob Portman
2. Scott Walker
3. Hillary Clinton

If Portman was cleared out by anyone beside himself, it was Bush.

I maintain that Portman would've won had he run.  I stand by that part of my prediction and given that Portman was acting very much like someone gearing up to run, this was hardly a dumb prediction knowing what we knew when I made that post.  "Most likely" is different than "Rob Portman will definitely be elected President in 2016."  Bush will go down in either the primaries or the general if he runs (my money's on the former, but we'll see).

Just razzing you. All are invited to give me the same treatment when the chance presents itself!
172  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who would be the strongest non-Hillary female nominee for the Democrats? on: December 02, 2014, 11:18:58 pm
It's not clear to me that Clinton herself would actually be any stronger in a general election than Gillibrand and Klobuchar would be.  She shows up as stronger in the polls now, because virtually no one knows who Gillibrand and Klobuchar are, but obviously whoever wins the nomination is going to have near 100% name recognition by election day.

I agree with this and would go further; because of Hillary's wealth and past, Klobuchar would be a more effective messenger on the economy. (I also think Klobuchar would be a bit stronger than Gillibrand and stronger than any male nominee.)

As I've said before, there's even an argument that Warren is stronger than Clinton. I know the conventional wisdom is Warren is too far left to win (the same argument that was made about Obama in the 2008 primaries) but issue polling shows her views are pretty mainstream. Obama and Hillary have both tried to imitate Warren's rhetoric and ended up sounding much less moderate than her.
173  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Brian Schatz on: December 02, 2014, 12:02:19 pm
Loyalty will be a non-factor if the race is remotely close. Anyone who doesn't get that is hopelessly stupid. Even if she has a fairly comfortable lead, doing no harm still trumps loyalty and Tim Kaine, the first major office holder to endorse Obama, is a viable choice, though the risk to his senate seat is a deterrent. Hickenlooper another early Obama supporter is another likely choice. Schatz feels less so. If Hillary is polling double digit leads, sure, she might pick McAuliffe.
174  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Portman says no to presidential race on: December 02, 2014, 09:08:12 am
Time to enjoy this 3 week old declaration that Portman was the #1 most likely person to be elected president in 2016.

1. Rob Portman
2. Scott Walker
3. Hillary Clinton

If Portman was cleared out by anyone beside himself, it was Bush.
175  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: When everyone said Obama couldn’t beat Clinton? Yeah, that never happened. on: December 01, 2014, 11:17:23 pm
Hillary is already running and is in a much stronger position to be the nominee than she was in 2008. Warren excites young and liberal voters a bit like Obama did but (a) she's given no sign that she wants to run (b) she won't dominate a demographic the way Obama did black voters. Hillary is better positioned to be elected president than any non-incumbent in the last 50 years.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 114


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines