Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 01, 2014, 01:18:40 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 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 107
151  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why do people assume Jeb would make FL uncompetitive? on: June 09, 2014, 11:51:22 am
After 8 years of hype with Obama, Jeb if he's the nominee will represent the opportunity to move on. Oh and Democrats should not be presuming that the Bush brand name is as toxic as Obama could be in 2016. Remember the old adage, "I'm not my brother's keeper"

How carefully did you read that story?
152  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Settle It: Would Walker win Wisconsin? on: June 09, 2014, 10:23:25 am
You really expect anyone to answer this question without a metaphorical threat of violence?

Fine, we'll do it your way: no.
153  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Enough with Invincible Hillary on: June 09, 2014, 09:07:17 am
The evidence that Ryan is a gigantic underdog against Hillary isn't the 2012 result in Wisconsin, it's that Ryan looks unlikely to run. Is there anyone who isn't a Republican who doubts she'd destroy him?
 
Despite all the TEA talk, the mainstream conservatives are the most powerful and will nominate people like Christie, Portman, Walker, etc. and when the candidates of the moderates and radical cons fall, those groups will fall in line with the Mainstream's candidate, with the Evangelicals putting up a losing fight. We saw this perfectly in 2012, which is why Romney won.

The GOP will nominate a mainstream conservative. Cruz won't go anywhere, other than damage the eventual nominee and the GOP brand (ala 2012).

I'm not sure what mainstream means here but Perry, Cain, Gingrich and Santorum losing was not about them being too conservative. It was about other stuff that doesn't really seem to apply to Cruz.

Other stuff such as…?

Too liberal on immigration, sex scandal, too corrupt, too underfunded.

I mean "mainstream" as in "establishment". I was referring to my post analyzing the GOP primary/general election electorate with all the percentages. The GOP will not nominate a TEA Partier or Evangelical warrior (though GWB did kind of have some of that). They will continue to nominate establishment candidates who are conservative but not radical, as they have been.

Sure but the primary isn't Goldilocks and the bears in that GOP primary voters don't reject candidates for being too conservative. Not saying it's not easier to win with establishment support at your back. It is. Most of that is money, though it only goes so far as Giuliani and Romney 2008 show. What GOP presidential candidates with conventional qualifications were hurt in primaries by being too conservative? I can't think of any. It's true some GOP party leaders loathe Cruz but I'm not sure that'll matter much. His fundraising abilities and Santorum's are night and day.
154  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who would be a better General Election Candidate? on: June 07, 2014, 04:02:36 pm
People exaggerate Warren's weakness in a general election. If Feingold can win in Wisconsin and Brown in Ohio, Warren can win nationally. Not to mention Obama in 2008. Warren would probably hold up well in a campaign; the American electorate is more liberal than they realize.

Also, Clinton will have a slew of problems in a general election that Warren would not. That said, Clinton is the best positioned non-incumbent 2 and a half years out we've ever seen.
155  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Gun to your head: Do you think Hillary Clinton will run for POTUS in 2016 ? on: June 06, 2014, 07:32:35 pm
Can you explain what exactly has been disasterous about Obama's presidency? I'm not exactly a fan, but I recognize he's the best we're going to get out of an American President.

I think his foreign policy has been terrible.  You don't announce to the world when you're going to bring troops home from Afghanistan, you just do it as secretively as you can, even if your own citizens don't know.  The terrorists can now just wait us out and then set up shop and wreak havoc.  That almost happened in Iraq.  IIRC, when we pulled out of Iraq there was a brief uptick in violence.  I pray the same thing does not happen in Afghanistan. 

You think Obama's ending the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars is so unpopular that it's helping redeem Bush's reputation?

It also feels like our Christian liberties are crumbling and we're having bites of our liberties taken out little by little.  This country is not as free as it was 10-20 years ago.  Christians aren't as welcomed and encouraged to speak their mind as they used to be.  In fact, anymore, it seems Christians are told to keep their mouths shut and allow the immorality to continue. 

Who tells Christians to keep their mouths shut? Whoever they are, maybe America would be more free if people weren't allowed to tell Christians to keep their mouths shut.

Second, I still believe there was a cover up over the Benghazi incident that will hurt Hillary Clinton if she were to run.  It may not be as bad now that it was almost two years ago, but it will still come into play.  He also allowed the IRS to unfairly target conservative groups because of their ideology.  He put on a show and acted all mad when he "found out", but he didn't do enough to stop that before it happened. 

Sounds like you didn't follow that IRS story too closely, but isn't Christie one of your top choices for president?
156  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Enough with Invincible Hillary on: June 06, 2014, 05:41:29 pm
The evidence that Ryan is a gigantic underdog against Hillary isn't the 2012 result in Wisconsin, it's that Ryan looks unlikely to run. Is there anyone who isn't a Republican who doubts she'd destroy him?
 
Despite all the TEA talk, the mainstream conservatives are the most powerful and will nominate people like Christie, Portman, Walker, etc. and when the candidates of the moderates and radical cons fall, those groups will fall in line with the Mainstream's candidate, with the Evangelicals putting up a losing fight. We saw this perfectly in 2012, which is why Romney won.

The GOP will nominate a mainstream conservative. Cruz won't go anywhere, other than damage the eventual nominee and the GOP brand (ala 2012).

I'm not sure what mainstream means here but Perry, Cain, Gingrich and Santorum losing was not about them being too conservative. It was about other stuff that doesn't really seem to apply to Cruz.
157  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Gun to your head: Do you think Hillary Clinton will run for POTUS in 2016 ? on: June 04, 2014, 09:00:15 am
Please take the gun away from my head and then we can have a conversation.

EDIT: Fine. We'll do it your way: obviously running.
158  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If it's Christie vs Clinton in 2016 on: June 04, 2014, 08:49:19 am
Romney had a ton of vulnerabilities his GOP rivals failed to hit effectively before Obama did so. No reason to assume Christie winning the nomination means he's covered his Achilles.

I'd bet on her beating Obama 2012 in CA, FL, MA, MN, NH, NM, NV, OH, PA, VA, WI + flipping AR, GA, MO.
159  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: If Republicans lose the 2016 election on: June 03, 2014, 11:29:30 am
I don't see why the Republicans should moderate. What's the point of being the Democrat-lite party?

Regardless of what happens in 2016, mark my words, the Republicans will win an election in the 2020s.

Well… you know you're party's not in great shape when you feel the need to predict they'll win 1 of the 3 elections that'll happen between 5-15 years from now.

As for the topic of how 2020 would be affected by a 2016 GOP loss, it depends who the losing nominee was.
160  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: PPP-National: Rubio trails Clinton by 7%; climate change hurts him more on: June 03, 2014, 10:50:39 am
Rubio's been the dumbest but almost all Republican candidates have been pretty dumb on it and hopefully will be held accountable for it.

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=192302.0

161  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rand Paul calls coal 'one of the least favorable forms of energy' on: June 02, 2014, 05:46:08 pm
One of those accidentally telling the truth kind of gaffes. It will be interesting to see if the 'war on coal' is an issue in the GOP primaries, especially following today's new EPA regulations. Polling shows that Americans want less coal and more of everything else, so I'm not sure if there is a lot of mileage to get out of going to the mat for de-regulating coal electricity production (outside of the big coal states). Will any of the candidates make it an issue that they plan to roll back or eliminate carbon regulation? (which mostly effects old coal electric plants).

Yes but voters haven't been the real target audience of the GOP's show of climate science denialism. That audience is who Paul is probably much more worried about this quote alienating. What the voters think of it will only worry him if he ends up running for re-election. As for the GOP primary, the new polls might scare Republicans from too aggressively opposing the new EPA regulations, just as they're now scared of saying they want to repeal Obamacare. It'll also be interesting to see how many GOP 2016ers are willing to commit to full repeal.
162  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2016 Republican Nomination Poll - June 2014 on: June 02, 2014, 12:54:02 pm
I'll say Cruz is the most likely nominee but <10% to end up the nominee. I think however you rank them, I doubt the most likely nominee is much more likely than the 7th or 8th most likely. It's wide open.

Cruz, Paul, Jindal, Santorum and Perry may not look as strong as other potential candidates, but many of those are less likely to even run so it balances out. The first 3 in that group look stronger than the Santorum and Perry. Even though the GOP almost never nominates someone on their first run, candidates making a second run almost never poll as badly as Santorum and Perry do now. Of Cruz, Paul and Jindal, Cruz and Paul are the 2 who've shown some ability to break through, Cruz and Jindal are the 2 with the fewest deal breakers with the base. I think that adds up to Cruz as being the #1 seed here.

None of the potential establishment choices are "pure", some with more serious vulnerabilities than others. I realize McCain and Romney weren't pure but they were also pitted against weaker fields than 2016 looks to be. Walker looks the most "pure" (despite signaling he approves a path to citizenship then denying he did so) but there's still a good chance he loses re-election or wins but defers to a Ryan run. Not to mention, his establishment support is rockier than ever.
163  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Gary Locke on: May 31, 2014, 08:48:35 pm
I'd bet on him to be the next VP.
164  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Design the Republican candidate who would be Hillary's worst nightmare on: May 26, 2014, 09:56:12 pm
Simple. 

Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), but turn him into a female, give him the union-busting/economic accomplishments of Scott Walker, the popularity of Ryan Sandoval, the savvy of Jeb Bush, the libertarianism of Rand Paul, and some of the sensibilities of Jon Huntsman. 

Unbeatable.

On one hand, you made an error because you were thinking of Brian Sandoval. On the other hand, you're accidentally correct because this fictional person would more realistically end up as popular as some unknown person named Ryan Sandoval, assuming they're as conservative as Tim Scott. Or when you say turn Tim Scott into a female, did you just mean, a black woman? Or you just feel Tim Scott is a woman born in a man's body and you want everything to be right in the world?

Let me clarify, I mean a female version of Tim Scott.  I do not think Tim Scott is secretly a female.  Smiley

Yeah but if the GOP really wants to re-brand and convince young voters they're not a party of bigots, a black woman isn't as persuasive as a black transexual. Is Ru Paul the answer to this riddle?!
165  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Design the Republican candidate who would be Hillary's worst nightmare on: May 26, 2014, 09:51:11 pm
David James Anderson, Jr. (born May 7, 1956) is an American businessman and politician who served as the 45th Governor of Pennsylvania, from January 2003 until January 2011. With a net worth of $43.5 billion, he is the 3rd-richest person in the United States, and president and former CEO of RCA.

Born in Scranton, Pennsylvania to the owner of a department store and a daughter of the Marquess of Wexford, Anderson attended Yale University, where he was Phi Beta Kappa and earned a Rhodes Scholarship to attend the University of Oxford, later going on to attend the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton Business School. From 1979 to 1989, and then from 1990 to 1991, he served in the United States Navy as one of its most decorated officers, coming to national attention in 1981 due to an incident on the USS Nimitz in which he saved a number of lives. In 1985 he married Lauren Stroud. Anderson served as Chief of Staff to Senator John Heinz from 1989 until the latter's death in 1991.In 1991 he joined Westinghouse as an executive. When the corporation split in 1997, Anderson, who had been expected to become CEO of the new Westinghouse, was dismissed.He would later found the Altes Electronic Group, which in 1999 was renamed RCA after its acquisition of the latter

On May 7, 1956, David James Anderson, Jr. was born to David J. Anderson, Sr. and Julia Anderson at at the Mercy Hospital in Scranton, Pennsylvania. David J. Anderson Sr., (b. 1929) was at the time the manager at the Globe Department Store in downtown Scranton. He was born to Harold Anderson (formerly Harald Andersson), a the son of a Norwegian immigrant, and Elizabeth Anderson (nee Whitfield), whose family had lived in the area since the early 1800's. In 1962 Anderson would come into the ownership of the company. Julia Anderson (nee Houghton-Turnbull) (born 1932) . The youngest of six children, her father was Geoffrey Houghton-Turnbull, 5th Marquess of Wexford, members of the Protestant Ascendancy who came to the US in 1922. Once wealthy and owning a country manor and a Wexford townhouse, they came almost destitute, most of their possessions either having been repossessed or stolen.

The young Anderson was characterized by family friends and acquaintances as "extremely gifted" and "very intelligent". The young boy attends the George Bancroft Elementary and West Scranton Intermediate Schools, having started kindergarten a year early. He was sent to Lawrenceville School for high school; at the school, Anderson excels, with one former teacher remarking that he "could probably correct Virgil on his grammar". Anderson develops something of a reputation as a polyglot, being fluent in Latin, French, and Ancient Greek. He graduated as valedictorian and was accepted into the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University, Princeton University, and Yale University, and while he had been expected to attend Princeton he ultimately chose to attend Yale.

Rather portentously, he observes that Yale is the stuff "future leaders are made out of". Anderson, again, manages to excel at Yale, eventually to the point that he graduates a year early. Taking up residence at Branford College, Anderson finds his niche at the Yale Political Union, eventually rising to become one of the Party Chairmans. Before graduating, he is eulogized by the YPU President for "leaving too soon". But he, in his own words, is "moving up"... Anderson also takes the time to join the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps. Contrary to popular belief, Anderson was not a member of the Skull and Bones secret society.

Anderson is accepted as an Rhodes Scholar, and studies at Christ Church College for two years, eventually receiving an D.Phil in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics for his troubles. His reputation precedes him, and when he joins the Oxford Conservative Association he is welcomed with a standing ovation. He participates in the Oxford and Cambridge Regatta in 1978 and 1979, which Oxford both won. A bit less prestigious, Anderson develops a bit of a reputation as a ladies man. Benazir Bhutto, a contemporary, would describe him as a "serial philanderer".

In 1979, Anderson enters active duty in the navy, as an Ensign. He quickly makes a good impression on his superiors, and is assigned to a senior role usually reserved for higher officers on the carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. Unfortunately for him, he winds up at sea on that ship for 152 days, notably commenting that a grand total of two beers had been consumed for that period. His affable demeanor and keen sense of observation lead to him becoming a rather popular person in the dull environment at sea. He, in a rather cliched manner, is able to return to Scranton on Christmas Day 1980. Surprisingly, he speaks glowingly of his service.

The next year, Anderson is posted to the USS Nimitz, where he continued to serve honorably, if not unremarkable. Unremarkably, that is, until May 26, when an Prowler crashed on to the flight deck. Anderson, completely disregarding any concept of personal safety, rushes to raise a barrier in order to shelter those on the deck from the blast. Anderson's actions manage to save a number of lives- five died in the incident, while over fifty were injured- but much of Anderson's left leg is blown away in the blast. He is rushed to to a military hospital in Sicily, and while his leg is saved, his foot is not- Anderson will be forced to use a prosthetic for the rest of his life, a fact that was known by few.

His gallantry, however, does not go unnoticed. For his extreme bravery, Anderson is awarded the Legion of Merit, the Purple Heart, and the Bronze Star. An investigation into the crash reveals that the pilot and many others on the ship were under the influence of marijuana at the time, and the ensuing furor brings David Anderson to center stage. Anderson is called to testify to a to the House Armed Services Committee, and while he is not accused of any wrongdoing, he revives a grilling from Charles Price, the chair. The harsh interrogation is widely considered unjustified and contributed to Price not running for re-election in 1982.

Anderson is able to return to the Navy in 1982, now having been promoted to Junior Lieutenant at the end of the previous year. He is assigned to the USS Callaghan, where he serves on the staff. This goes without incident. In late 1983, Anderson is once again promoted to Lieutenant, and is made the executive officer of the USS Coontz. Here, he is able to participate in the invasion of Grenada, where the Coontz is part of the Independence Task Group. He once again earns a name for himself, and is awarded the Navy Cross.

As it was for almost any Oxonian, attending the Oxford-Cambridge Boat Race was an annual tradition. It was fate, however, that Professor Paul Klemperer felt it prudent to introduce Lauren Stroud “to an old student”.

Regardless of the historical significance of the attraction the two felt for one another, David Anderson had proposed by the day after Lauren Stroud had graduated. The Andersons were beside themselves, particularly the Houghton-Turnbulls, who were elated to see one of their own marry into “esteemed” blood. The Strouds, on the other hand, had their initial misgivings, but were soon reconciled, and not shortly after pleased, with their daughter’s choice of a husband, and were comforted by his prestigious scholarly and military record.

The couple was married in the spring of the next year, in Christ Church Cathedral, by Richard Harries, who not long after became Bishop of Oxford. The reception was not far away, in the Hall of Christ Church College (one may see pictures of the event in the Anderson Foundation Archives). They spent their honeymoon in the Gheralta in Ethiopia’s Tigray Province, a decision that frightened many of their relatives- the civil war there had ended not a half-year before. Lauren gave birth to twins in the May of 1986, David III and Rebecca.

Anderson returned to the Navy not shortly after his wedding, and continued to serve with distinction, being promoted to Commander in 1989. Increasingly, close friends say, Anderson felt a sense of boredom with the Navy- there were no wars, the Cold War was ending, and the 600-ship Navy was quickly becoming a fiction. Anderson quickly decided to leave the Navy, despite the appeals of those same friends, who assured Anderson “he could become an admiral”, including William McRaven, who himself became an admiral. Regardless, on June 6, 1989, David Anderson was honorably discharged from the United States Navy.

Now, the 33-year old David Anderson wondered what to do with himself. Sources close to him say he seriously contemplated running for Congress, but neither seat in Lackawanna County looked particularly competitive- the 10th district was held by a man who had held that seat since the 1960s, and the 11th district by one who had won in 1988 with a 41 percent majority. Nor did the thought of moving to another part of the state to run in an open district appeal to him much. Anderson spent the summer as a staffer for senator H. John Heinz III. He would spend the next two years there as his Chief of Staff.

Jesus. Anderson sounds way too crazy to put in charge of the Armed Forces. Not to mention his family sounds like a bunch of real a-holes. Still ready for Hillary.
166  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Design the Republican candidate who would be Hillary's worst nightmare on: May 26, 2014, 07:30:40 pm
Simple. 

Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), but turn him into a female, give him the union-busting/economic accomplishments of Scott Walker, the popularity of Ryan Sandoval, the savvy of Jeb Bush, the libertarianism of Rand Paul, and some of the sensibilities of Jon Huntsman. 

Unbeatable.

On one hand, you made an error because you were thinking of Brian Sandoval. On the other hand, you're accidentally correct because this fictional person would more realistically end up as popular as some unknown person named Ryan Sandoval, assuming they're as conservative as Tim Scott. Or when you say turn Tim Scott into a female, did you just mean, a black woman? Or you just feel Tim Scott is a woman born in a man's body and you want everything to be right in the world?
167  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Gunman near UCSB kills 6 people, injures 7 on: May 25, 2014, 02:21:26 pm
Just another mentally-ill kid with a gun, which has been illegal since 1968.

And yet he bought the guns legally.
168  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Nate Silver: Jim Webb (or similar moderate) better anti-Hillary than liberal one on: May 25, 2014, 01:17:43 pm
That's Nate Silver's website but Harry Enten's piece. Also, yeah, Schweizter seems better positioned since he can appeal simultaneously to Democrats who think Clinton is too liberal and those who think she's too conservative. But hard to imagine him getting past his gun issues.
169  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Odds GOP wins 2016 Presidential Election if Clinton doesn't run on: May 24, 2014, 09:18:04 pm
So your saying Joe Biden would be a stronger candidate than O'Malley, Warren, Gillibrand and Klobuchar? A guy who would be 73 on ED and makes frequent gaffes every time he speaks... Gillibrand and Klobuchar are the Dems strongest non Hillary candidates any Republican would struggle against either two.

I'm not even convinced Hillary would be stronger than Klobuchar in a general election; more strengths but also more weaknesses. People are also exaggerating Warren's weakness in a general election, as many did with Obama ahead of 2008 when he won 365 EVs. What about her exactly is going to scare voters more than the GOP does? You think people in swing states love income inequality or something?

I'd personally give the GOP a 75% chance at winning without Hillary running.  Given these Senate primaries and the tendency of an out-party to moderate(see Silver article on this) after 8 years, I think an establishment candidate like Walker or Jeb will get nominated. 

The out party has moderated when less moderate nominees lost preceding elections. But out Republicans nominated Reagan and out Democrats nominated Obama. The GOP is coming off 2 moderates losing in a row. Also, they'd be emboldened without Hillary running and today's GOP has a stronger base than parties usually do. Don't buy the spin on the senate primaries. These GOP nominees are still very conservative albeit better packaged, the equivalent of Pence, Walker, Ryan. The GOP race is too unpredictable to say one way or another which way they'll go (or would go without Hillary running).
170  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Design the Republican candidate who would be Hillary's worst nightmare on: May 24, 2014, 07:55:28 pm
Before she can beat Arnold Schwarznegger in a primary, he travels back in time to the year 1987 and impregnates her. The timing of the pregnancy makes Garcia unable to fly and she turns down Reagan's appointment, nipping her political career in the bud, but that was just good luck; Schwarznegger only did it because he can't resist Mexican women in their prime.
171  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Schweitzer:"In England, a baby’s born and they know he’ll grow up to be king..." on: May 23, 2014, 05:18:18 pm
Nominating anyone other than Clinton is handing the GOP the Presidency for at least 4 years.

That's good news for John McCain.

There is no indication that 2016 will be anything like 2008.

There's no indication another Democratic nominee would be weaker than Hillary once the campaign started. Not that it matters. If she runs, she'll be the nominee.

Back when people bothered to poll Biden, he did much worse than Hillary every time despite having similar name recognition. Of course, you can guess that Hillary will fall/whatever other Democrat will rise, but your guess is as good as anyone's on that front. I'd much rather be ahead at this stage than behind, even though things can change.

I cannot deny Hillary is a frontrunner and I won't be surprised if she's nominated, but things can indeed change. If every frontrunner at this point would have been nominated, we would have President Gary Hart or President Rudy Giuliani or President Clinton, finishing her second term.

The point is: Hillary's nomination is not a forgone conclusion yet and other Democrats lack of electability is not a forgone conclusion either.

But none of those candidate's dominance was anywhere close to Hillary's right now. I'd say Hillary right now is the strongest non-incumbent nomination frontrunner in the modern age of primaries. Including incumbent VPs Bush and Gore. And looking at the same time frame, today's Republicans are right now the weakest party heading into an open election. Not impossible that will change but there's no indication at this point it will. Which is why I started another thread last year wondering if Hillary was, three years out, the best positioned non-incumbent ever. Now, it's 2 and a half, and I say yes to that too.
172  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Schweitzer:"In England, a baby’s born and they know he’ll grow up to be king..." on: May 23, 2014, 04:53:58 pm
Nominating anyone other than Clinton is handing the GOP the Presidency for at least 4 years.

That's good news for John McCain.

There is no indication that 2016 will be anything like 2008.

There's no indication another Democratic nominee would be weaker than Hillary once the campaign started. Not that it matters. If she runs, she'll be the nominee.
173  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: IA-PPP: D: Clinton 59% Biden 12%; R: Huckabee 20% Cruz 15% Bush 12% Paul 10% on: May 22, 2014, 09:12:30 pm
Warren's lead in a Hillary-Biden-less field is pretty huge actually. Compare it to the open GOP side. If Karl Rove and Rience Priebus can convince Hillary her brain damage is acting up and she passes on the race, I still think Warren will be the nominee. And I think she'd be much stronger in a general election than people realize.
174  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Schweitzer:"In England, a baby’s born and they know he’ll grow up to be king..." on: May 22, 2014, 09:05:09 pm
He opposed FISA the entire time he was in the Senate, including during the primaries in 2008. It was only once he became the presumptive nominee that he voted for it, as the article shows.

If you look at the Iraq War roll call vote, everyone that voted against it did not have any presidential aspirations. That was no accident.

Ronald Earnest Paul.

I was referring to Democrats. But even Ron Paul knew he was never going to win the nomination, he ran just to give his platform more exposure.

This thread has now gone more off the rails than the plan the create a democratic, US-allied Iraq. Hillary voted to authorize the war. Legitimate to criticize her for it. Saying Schweitzer would have voted the same way is speculation based on nothing. It's irrelevant. If he runs, he won't beat her.




175  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: IA-PPP: Clinton with narrow to modest leads on: May 22, 2014, 03:54:57 pm
IA has never seemed too fond of Hillary, both in these last few years and in early 2008 polling. Must be a latte/yuppie state when it comes to Dems.

a what?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 107


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines