Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 27, 2014, 04:37:58 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Warren vs. Obama Spin on: October 23, 2014, 06:55:10 pm
Warren is not going to run, especially since unlike Obama in 2008. She respects Hillary.

She might run if Hillary decides to quit politics by 2016, but she'll loose massively to a moderate republican if she manages to win the democratic candidacy.

Alsowasn't Obama supposed to be the far-left's Elizabeth Warren back in 2008?

If Warren even somehow manages to get elected, just like Obama. In many years down the road they'll just be complaining about how "Warren is a secret conservative/center-right" Like the far-left/radical base of thedemocratic party are calling Obama today.

President's always change their policies when they have to experience more of the political issues from the broader range and not the ideological bubble they had when they got elected.

Thats why Obama went from cap and trade, closing gitmo, wanting to revoke the Patriot act, leaving Iraq, more gun control. To reversing those positions slowly up to today.

Bill Clinton campaigned on cutting taxes and establishing a universal single payer healthcare system. To doing neither of that because cutting taxes would of not allowed the budget surplus in his second term. And the healthcare debacle became a mess that he led the democrats to lose the house of representatives in 40 years.

Reagan also had to raise some taxes back when the deficit grew.

And HW bush did it also despite promising "No new taxes"

In thr article she wants Obama to "argue for the positions" she wants. Even though he has already done so and many democrats were misguided about how much power a President really has. And no attempt at persuasion can change members of the other party to vote for what you want. And they don't have to because they were voted specifically to oppose the policies of the opposite party. Otherwise the voters would of voted for the party of the president. Let's remember that Bush campaigned after the 2004 election for an amendment to ban gay marriage and it dropped when not even his own party liked the idea. You can not force congress to vote to approve your idea just by talking about it.

Besides, Warren has little clue about Wall street besides left wing jargon. Its a bid disheartening when i hear people still to this day believe that the 2008 crisis had "one single cause and had it bwen stopped the crash wouldn't of happened"

You forgot a couple: Reagan grew the deficit and softened his stance on the cold war during the second term. There may even be more, but I can't think of any right now.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Washington Post puts odds of Hillary running at 99.99% on: October 14, 2014, 11:26:57 pm
By fall 2013, it started lookeinglike a good chance she would run.
3  General Discussion / History / Re: Why is Eisenhower so praised? on: October 10, 2014, 10:00:40 am
The economy was extremely volatile prior to the late 20th century compared to contemporary standards. For instance, there were three recessions during the "Roaring 20s." I am not quite sure why that is, but it may have to do with the fact that the service sector accounted for a smaller proportion of the economy and that it was less elastic than the industrial sector. In 1958 there was indeed a sharp recession, however by the end of the year it was clearly over and there was a sharp rebound in 1959. Overall, the economy of the Eisenhower 1950s can be classified as booming.

There was another recession in 1960.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Next six presidents on: October 09, 2014, 07:39:08 pm
I know I posted this yesterday on this thread, but I accidentally deleted it, so I'm going to repost it.

There's actually an interesting political cycle theory related to this.

This is how it goes:

Hoover-Carter: Both of these politically moderate presidents are considered failures, and because of them  an era of liberalism/conservatism begins.

FDR-Reagan: Both presidents considered heroes of the left/right, both ushered an era of liberalism/conservatism, and also "defeated" foreign enemies of the far-right (Nazi Germany), and the far-left (Soviet Union).

Truman-Bush 41: Both vice-presidents of the previous administration, and are one-termers who had really bad approval ratings by the time reelection came along, and failed to live up to the previous president. Both presidents also ended tensions with past enemies (Truman: Nazi Germany/ Bush 41: Soviet Union), and created new tensions (Truman: the beginning of the Cold War, Bush 41: beginning of tensions with the Middle-East with the Gulf War).

Eisenhower-Clinton: Both were moderate heroes, who ushered a decade of peace and prosperity.

JFK/LBJ-Bush/Cheney: Both Bush and JFK were members of a political dynasty, whose election to the presidency was against the vice-president of the former administration. The two vice-presidents (Nixon/Gore) were extremely uncharismatic, and lost the election by a razor-thin margin, despite the last president being very popular. Both JFK/LBJ and Bush/Cheney increased tensions severely with foreign enemies (Soviet Union/Middle-East), and ushers a decade of war (Vietnam/Iraq and Afghanistan).

Nixon-Obama: See this thread: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=168317.0

So following this cyclical theory, a moderate Republican should win narrowly in 2016, and lose in 2020 to a far-left Democrat who ushers an era of liberal dominance.

It's all so neat; if only it went backwards. But I don't see the parallel between Coolidge and Nixon (or Obama for that matter). I think the better way to think about the parallelism in those two epochs is to study the events which shaped them, rather than the outcomes. From the way you've set the "cycles" up, they have a common origin in a financial crisis of catastrophic proportions which combined the incumbent presidents to 1 term and naturally led to the election of candidates who offered big shiny new solutions which became the defining dogma of their respective factions for the next several decades.

In 1980, there were a lot of economic problems, but far from "financial catastrophic proportions". I think it was a combination of things that made Jimmy Carter sort of the democratic Herbert Hoover.

About the democrats possibly dominating in this presidential cycle: It could more demographic than ideological. Who knows, though.

Domination cycles:







5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Millennials Up For Grabs? on: October 06, 2014, 10:04:27 am
I don't really consider people in the late 90's/early 00's to be millennials.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Next six presidents on: October 04, 2014, 06:31:40 pm
I'm largely going by the 36-40 year cycle domination theory.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Economy as issue in 2016 - will it be better, worse or same? on: October 04, 2014, 04:04:03 pm
The same or slightly better.

This is actually the best year for job creation since 1999.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Next six presidents on: October 04, 2014, 02:58:36 pm

Hillary Clinton (2017-2025)
Marco Rubio (2025-2029)
Democrat (2029-2037)
Republican (2037-2041)
Democrat (2041-2049)
Republican (2049-2057)
9  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why is President Obama's approval so low? on: August 04, 2014, 11:02:28 pm
He's black.


His approval ratings should eventually rise if:

Economy continues its solid growth.

No major scandal.

World conflicts settle down.

10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: FL-SurveyUSA: Clinton leads Paul, Paul leads Biden on: July 13, 2014, 01:18:38 pm
Rand is not a good candidate he would bomb on the national stage we've seen him under pressure and the spotlight and he does not handle it well at all. See the plagiarism scandal for example he also squirms whenever someone presses him about the Southern Avenger situation.

I agree with this. He's not a good politician.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Politico: The Case for Mitt `16 on: July 05, 2014, 07:40:57 am
The Republicans have a stronger field this cycle, a lot better than the jokers that played 2012.  That, along, with Hillary Clinton repeatedly shooting herself in the foot with her gaffes, might eliminate the need for Romney to run again.  Romney wouldn't be able to do much because he's a has-been.  Jeb Bush has a stronger chance, because the name of Bush is not near as toxic as it was in 2008.  Plus, Jeb is unlike his elder brother.  After what a lot of Americans view as the worst presidency since World War II under Obama, the name Bush may actually sound pretty appealing and even comforting.  There's no need for Romney to run.  The GOP can do quite well without him.

That Quinnipiac poll is borderline nonsense.
12  General Politics / Economics / Re: US unemployment rate decreases from 6.3% to 6.1% in July 2014 on: July 05, 2014, 07:36:43 am
If job creation remains solid throughout the year, he may get some credit. If the trend continues into 2015, the "morning in america" hype may be on.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bob Schieffer: Romney may consider 2016 run if Jeb Bush doesn’t on: April 30, 2014, 12:39:13 am
Kerry vs. Romney 2016.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Most forgotten post-WWII presidential election on: April 24, 2014, 06:37:28 am
1968 was actually much closer than it should've been.
15  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.
16  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.
17  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.
18  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.
19  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.
20  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.

21  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.

22  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.
23  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.
24  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.
25  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.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines