Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 20, 2014, 03:59:57 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Will Barack Obama be remembered as the Democrats' Nixon? on: April 18, 2014, 07:09:47 am
You can go back and forth with comparions.

The ACA is a pretty big legislative achievement. It got nicknamed Obamacare. Even the democrats and Obama himself started callling it that.

 If it turns out to be at least fairly popular, that certainly adds to his legacy.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Will Barack Obama be remembered as the Democrats' Nixon? on: April 17, 2014, 08:17:50 am
Fairly similar to a democratic Nixon. Minus Watergate, of course.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: The first election in which the D was left-wing and the R was right-wing on: April 16, 2014, 06:24:19 pm
The Second Great Awakening and the explosion of moralism that followed (something Democrats still mock Republicans for today)

That's kind of generalizing.

There's actually a good amount of moden democrats who are christian. Even  more liberals than you would think.

Of course, most things in politics are subjective.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: The first election in which the D was left-wing and the R was right-wing on: April 16, 2014, 06:18:08 pm
From a modern standpoint, probably 1936. When you're talking overall modern, probably 1964.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Current ticket predictions? on: April 13, 2014, 09:04:30 am
Yeah, I think Brown or Bennett will be Clinton's running mate.

I'll be very surprised if Rand Paul is the republican nominee. More than anything,  not a good politican.

Rick Perry is goofy, but he can improve and has one of the better governor records.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Current ticket predictions? on: April 12, 2014, 10:54:46 pm
What are your current ticket predictions?

Right now I got:

Hillary Clinton/Sherrod Brown. Makes a lot of sense.

Rick Perry/Marco Rubio. I think the republicans will go more right this time.

7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary is "thinking about it" on: April 11, 2014, 11:33:52 am
She wins if:

2016 is at least an okay period for the democrats. Obama with a decent approval rating.

Then you add in current presidential election demographs and a not too inspired republican field, It's hard to see her losing.

Still too early, though.

8  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why do conservatives hate Hollywood? on: April 10, 2014, 05:30:34 pm
There are left leaning producers in hollywood. The Weinsteins, Michael Eisner, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Kathleen Kennedy to name a few.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jeb Bush Outlines His Campaign Strategy on: April 08, 2014, 06:44:18 pm
Jeb Bush can't win, as opposed to Ted Cruz - far too conservative for a general election, same applies to Rick Santorum - time to give up the ghost Ricky boy! Rick Perry! not going to happen! Rand Paul doesn't have the gravitas to make a credible run; Marco Rubio, nice and to much of a light weight; Chris Christie, bully and is no more likely to make it passed the true blue tea party conservatives than Mitt Romney; Paul Ryan, not presidential enough and is to much identified with congressional Republicans; Scott Walker has to win re-election first and being durable enough is iffy at the least, besides he has a brittle quality that will be likely his undoing. All the possible contenders are all as flawed in one way or another as Jeb Bush appears to be and I use appears advisably, yes the family name might condemn him, but he's not his brother and he seems to represent the happy face of Republicanism like Ronald Reagan and doesn't come across as angry as the likes of Cruz, Santorum, Walker do or identified with tea party extremism as Paul or Rubio are or a light weight like Ryan is. Bush can without doubt appeal to hispanics and independents alike and represents more of the open tent Republicanism as embraced by Reagan, it's a no-brainer. So yeah let the GOP nominate Santorum, Cruz, Paul, Perry, Ryan and the outcome is a dead cert, to lose big time; Rubio or Christie just to many imponderables so again we are back with Jeb again. Besides his presence on ticket, makes Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico more competitive for Republicans, puts Florida out of reach for Democrats. I expect a good many Democrats will disagree with my "flawed" analysis as it takes them out of there comfort zone and Tea Party and hardline Republicans don't want to consider the idea that one of there "guys" might not have the electability to win; but that's where I believe we are.


I still kind of doubt Bush runs. If he does, I think Perry is his biggest challenger. If Perry could tone it down and be better prepared, he could possibly win.

Even if Bush wins the primary, he may too dull for the general election. He's not an exciting of a politican. Maybe if the democratic nominee is bad or more boring than him.

Who knows how 2016 is going to be, though. It could look awful for the democrats, it could look decent.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jeb Bush Outlines His Campaign Strategy on: April 07, 2014, 09:14:59 am
I still kind of doubt he'll run. If he does, I'm not sure he can win the primary. I also think he's too dull for the general. Unless he's going up against someone even less exciting than him.
11  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why do conservatives hate Hollywood? on: April 06, 2014, 09:33:11 am
As others have hinted, Hollywood leans left in its personal life, but the actual product it puts out is remarkably spread across the spectrum.  Let's look at ideology (or lack thereof) in the top 10 grossing movies of all time.  Not adjusting for inflation will give more weight to recent pictures:

1. Avatar: unambiguously left, very environmentalist
2. Titanic: unambiguously left
3. Marvel's Avengers: right, celebrates extreme wealth, defense spending, etc.
4. The Dark Knight: Very right
5. Star Wars Episode I: leans right, celebrates traditional religion and international intervention, condemns bureaucracy
6. Star Wars: leans right, government is a force for evil, also has devoutly religious people in a very unexpected setting
7. The Dark Knight Rises: Very right
8. Shrek 2: seems entirely non-ideological
9. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial: mostly non-ideological
10. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire: unambiguously right, as others have pointed out

So that's 4 movies with right wing themes + 2 movies that seem to lean right against 2 movies with left wing themes.

 Most of these movies are ambiguous. I don't even think the Nolan Batman movies are rightwi-ng.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Let's talk about 2020 on: April 06, 2014, 09:18:09 am
1968 and 1976 were very close despite anti-incumbent years.

Reagan was fairly, but not "massively" popular during the 1988 election year.

 2000 was pretty pro-incumbent, but ended up being ridiculously close. I wonder if Gore were a little more exciting, would he have had a mildly comfortable victory?


Yes, Gore in 2000 is the most obvious case of a candidate underperforming the fundamentals.  1976 being close was consistent with the economy of the time, but when you add in Watergate, I agree it's surprising Carter didn't do better and that should have been a warning sign for him.  1968 is a case of a very good economy with an incredibly unpopular war at the same time, so I guess they basically cancelled out.  It also wasn't nearly as close in the electoral college.  It also looks like Obama underperformed the fundamentals in 2008 on the surface, but that might just be both parties now having higher floors.

Some people would say Obama overperformed in 2008 because of the economic meltdown. My guess is that he would've won anyway, but I think the huge economic downturn made certain states closer, plus wins in Florida, North Carolina and Indiana.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Let's talk about 2020 on: April 05, 2014, 09:00:55 am
1968 and 1976 were very close despite anti-incumbent years.

Reagan was fairly, but not "massively" popular during the 1988 election year.

 2000 was pretty pro-incumbent, but ended up being ridiculously close. I wonder if Gore were a little more exciting, would he have had a mildly comfortable victory?
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How do you guys feel about Chris Matthew's thoughts on the 2016 GOP Run on: March 27, 2014, 09:22:07 am
I think Perry or Walker will get the nomination.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How do you guys feel about Chris Matthew's thoughts on the 2016 GOP Run on: March 27, 2014, 02:59:44 am
Unless the bigger establishment names choose not to run (Bush, Christie), I just don't see Paul being the nominee.  The media isn't focusing on his eccentricities right now and they certainly haven't attempted to tie him to any of his father's more "unique" views.  And make no mistake, they will do that by late 2015 and early 2016.

I go back to a story recently written about the four factions of the Republican party.  The author, Henry Olsen, suggests the four groups are moderates/liberals (25-30%), somewhat conservative, very conservative evangelicals (20%), and conservative secular voters (5-10%).  The somewhat conservative group is the largest faction at 35-40% of the vote.

While Paul may start with the vast majority of the very conservative secular voters, that only gives him a base of 5-10% so he'll obviously have to branch out into other groups.  He's making a serious play to do that now, but other candidates will likely fill those slots and make it difficult for him to piece together the 40% or so he'll need to win in a contested field.  And the best evidence of that is the current RCP average.  Paul sits at 13%, or just above the 10% threshold for very conservative secular voters.

These numbers also show why "establishment" choices have dominated since 1988.  For instance, while Paul must significantly branch out, someone like Bush wouldn't need to do nearly as much.  He'd likely occupy a major portion of the somewhat conservative faction and he'd almost certainly do well with the moderate/liberal portion.  Just in raw numbers, that's as much as 70% of the primary vote.  And even if Paul were to get every secular vote and evangelical vote, he'd still have to snag some from the two groups an "establishment" choice would dominate.  And if Cruz is in the race, well he and Paul occupy the same sphere.

If Bush and Christie both decide to pass (that won't happen), then it's easier to see a path for Paul or Cruz, but the somewhat conservative and moderate/liberal factions dominate the primary.  I'd put the number at 65%.  It's why Romney survived and it's why neither Paul or Cruz is likely to win.  And in my opinion, that especially true if Bush runs, because I think he'll clear a good part of the field that would've competed for the somewhat conservative and moderate/liberal votes.

I just don't see Paul or Cruz unless a whole bunch of people say no (Bush, Christie, Rubio, Walker, Kasich).

http://nationalinterest.org/article/the-four-faces-the-republican-party-9930

Agreed.
16  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why do conservatives hate Hollywood? on: March 21, 2014, 03:36:26 pm
I've always found this a bit odd. Consider the top-grossing movies of 2013 (US):

1. The Hunger Games: Jennifer Lawrence leads the rural working class in resisting a government dominated by cosmopolitan elites.

2. Iron Man 3: A young Romney-esque protagonist uses his wealth to save the world from terrorists.

3. Frozen: Climate change denial cloaked as a children's movie. Enough said.

4. Despicable Me 2: Dramatic tension stems from the main character's struggles as a single parent. Clearly, children need both a mother and a father.

5. Man of Steel: An adventure ripped straight from the tales of Edward Nietzsche.

6. Gravity: Either Cuarón was trying to make 90-minute special effects demo, or this is an extended metaphor for the life of Christ.

7. Monsters University: Satire of liberal academe.

8. The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug: Sequel to Rick Santorum's favorite movie.

9. Fast & Furious 6: Celebration of masculinity.

10. Oz the Great and Powerful: Don't leave the United States, because you'll run into all kinds of wacky characters and uncomfortable situations.

You might object that I haven't actually seen any of these movies. IRRELEVANT, I say, because HOLLYWOOD'S CONSERVATIVE MESSAGE IS THAT CLEAR.


Some of these are pretty funny, lol.
17  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Was FDR the best President we've ever had? on: March 13, 2014, 10:44:17 pm
Probably the most impressive overall.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Does a Hillary win look more or less likely now compared to one year ago on: February 25, 2014, 02:59:44 pm
I used to think it was too good to be true. I started buying into the Hillary hype a few months ago. Because of how weak the republcans look now, there's an even better chance of her running and winning.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: The New Democratic Majority -- It's Realignment on: February 25, 2014, 02:37:43 pm

[/quote]
Obama's failure to build on his 2008 numbers is historically unusual, and doesn't suggest the amazing strength of the Democratic party. Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon and Bill Clinton won second terms for their parties with bigger numbers, and saw the other party back in power the next time around. It doesn't suggest Republicans are guaranteed to win, but that the party could still be competitive.
[/quote]

He dodn't do much worse, I'm actually  surprised it doesn't happen more often. Plus, one could argue that he overachieved in 2008 because of the economic meltdown.
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: The New Democratic Majority -- It's Realignment on: February 24, 2014, 01:32:34 pm
Usually at the start these cycles, the party wins at least three in a row. I guess watergate stopped the republicans from winning three straight in 1976.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Was the Romney campaign the worst ever? on: February 20, 2014, 12:06:01 am
According to Allan Licthman's 13 keys to the Whitehouse, Romney was supposed to lose.
22  General Discussion / History / Re: Why did Gerry Ford lose in '76? on: February 17, 2014, 01:17:13 am
The economy was actually a lot better than it was, but still had problems.

Watergate's shadow,

Ford didn't have a whole lot of charisma.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Why was Dukakis leading Bush by double digits in the summer before the election? on: February 16, 2014, 02:53:56 pm
Polls don't mean a whole lot before october.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Has any non-incum 3 years out ever been better set-up than Hillary? on: February 15, 2014, 02:52:39 pm
The problem with Hillary is that the presidency doesn't usually go the obvious candidate three years earlier. Because the White House tends to switch parties when non-incumbents win.

Everyone wanted Eisenhower to run, and while it wasn't clear he was going to run, he did end up running, and we don't know that about Hillary.
Kennedy built his own campaign apparatus, upending politics as usual.
A 1965 Village Voice comic strip did have a liberal afraid of a Richard Nixon comeback, although this was before he took credit for the 1966 midterms, and turned his reputation around.
Jimmy Carter was an obscure Governor in 1973, who made an appearance in a game show where people had to guess who he was.
Reagan was a prominent critic of a Democrat who won a narrow election post-Watergate in 1977.
George HW Bush was Vice-President in 1985, and the President had just won 49 states. So he was fairly obvious.
Bill Clinton was an obscure small-state Governor in 1989, and it looked like Republicans had a lock on the White House.
George W Bush was the son of a former President turned big state Governor in 1997, with the bonus of being really religious in a party that depends on evangelicals. I'd say he's a fairly obvious President.
Obama was a prominent new Senator in 2005. His big book hadn't come out yet, Katrina hadn't happened as of July 2005 and there were more obvious contenders for his party's nomination.

Eisenhower and the Bushes are the three Presidents who were rather well set up 3 years out. Reagan also comes close.

I don't know if Hillary's on that level. Historical trends suggest that a party does worse in the third term seeking the White House than in the second term. Even Papa Bush's 40 state win with a national margin of 7.8% paled in comparison to Reagan's 18.2% in 1984. Plus, it isn't clear that Democrats can be as effective without Obama on the ballot. It would be in keeping in historical trends for Hillary to lose the General Election by about five points.

If Hillary Clinton runs, and the With the curent the electoral college trends, I can't see her losing by more than 3 points to anyone.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Has any non-incum 3 years out ever been better set-up than Hillary? on: February 15, 2014, 02:45:46 pm
I don't know if Hillary's on that level. Historical trends suggest that a party does worse in the third term seeking the White House than in the second term. Even Papa Bush's 40 state win with a national margin of 7.8% paled in comparison to Reagan's 18.2% in 1984. Plus, it isn't clear that Democrats can be as effective without Obama on the ballot. It would be in keeping in historical trends for Hillary to lose the General Election by about five points.

Your reasoning makes sense to me, but... who is she going to lose to? (Presuming she does get the Democratic nomination in the first place.) Christie seems to be out for the foreseeable future. Most of the nationally prominent Republicans are popular with their fans but seem to be unelectable nationally even if they don't self-destruct while campaigning, as seems all too likely. Who is left? An aging Jeb Bush (whose wife doesn't appear to want him to run)?  Or some competent and charismatic dark horse who's going to pull a Jimmy Carter? The last seems the most likely, but I'll be damned if I can see who that's going to be. XD

When was the last time the republicans had a Carter/Clinton type candidate who came out of nowhere to win?
Pages: [1] 2 3 4


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines