Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 21, 2014, 07:20:56 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How does a primary without Christie or Bush proceed? on: April 17, 2014, 09:23:37 am
The same way if Christie and/or Bush do run: Walker wins the nomination.

Does the Tea Party then claim Walker wasn't a real conservative after his subesquent loss?
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Bloomberg plans a $50 million challenge to the NRA on: April 16, 2014, 09:28:13 pm
Bleh, wish he'd do this for other issues like minimum wage or clean energy.

Those aren't threats to billionaires or America's .0001%-friendly politics. Guns are.

(I didn't mean that to come out sounding quite so tea- and tinfoil-flavored, but I'm a pretty big cynic when it comes to billionaires in general and Bloomberg in particular. Given the resources he has access to, his attempts to better the public good seem quixotic at best.)
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Can we please on: April 13, 2014, 02:16:30 pm
Rodgers wouldn't be picked to help win her state she would be picked because she's a women something the GOP ticket desperately needs against someone like Clinton. She's a conventional safe choice she's not Bachmann type crazy she's a Establishment mainstream pub who's acceptable nationwide.
Kelly Ayotte is too and she's at least a senator who could help in New Hampshire. As for women, they've also got Susana Martinez, Condi Rice, Nikki Haley, Kristi Noem (not qualified but no less so than CMR), Deb Fischer, and others, all of whom are at least as good of choices as McMorris Rodgers.

Can we stop talking about Condoleezza Rice as well? Today's Republican party is not going to nominate a unmarried, pro-choice, African-American woman with no elective experience for Vice-President (or President). Regardless of her other merits or flaws, it is not going to happen.
4  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: March 2014: First month ever with no dead soldiers in Iraq and/or Afghanistan on: April 09, 2014, 08:47:58 pm
Thanks Obama.

Why? He worked hard to keep U.S. troops in both places. That the local governments de-facto booted the US out isn't an outcome he tried to achieve. I'm glad the men and women of the armed forces get to come home, but their return is in spite of, not because of, the Obama and Bush administrations.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Here's why the GOP is NOT doomed in 2016 on: April 02, 2014, 09:03:59 pm
April Fool's. They're f***ed.
Made me laugh, thank you.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Chris Christie will run for president and will lose the nomination.... on: April 01, 2014, 12:27:03 pm
If he runs for president, he'll probably resign as governor fairly soon. He's not eligible to run for governor in 2017 and even if he were, I doubt he'd risk going out on a second humiliating loss. He'll probably try to get a TV show like Newt or a cushy job at one of the firms he gave some gigantic state contract to.

Isn't that going to make him look similar to Palin? I understand that he's already got one full term under his belt, but doing as you suggest could be made to look like he's fleeing from his duty under threat of scandal, ditching his responsibilities as governor so he could cash in.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: GOP Establishment Trying to Recruit Jeb Bush on: March 31, 2014, 11:52:15 am
You mean like how they did last election and got eradicated?^

An uncharismatic multimillionaire venture-capitalist from a minority religion nominated less than 4 years after an unprecedented financial disaster was never 'electable' nationally. Jeb Bush might be.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: GOP Establishment Trying to Recruit Jeb Bush on: March 31, 2014, 08:07:25 am
Common Core and Amnesty will be the death of Jeb. He is a BIG proponent of Common Care which TPers absolutely despise and an avid supporter of amnesty we all know what that did to Rubio. I don't know why people think he would have such a clear path for the nomination especially with rising stars like Paul, Cruz, or Walker potentially in the race. He'd be the guy who hasn't competed for an election since 2002 running against people that have all been recently elected in the past fews been on the trail etc.

He will have the support of the donors who think he's the most presentable candidate who can win, just like with Romney in 2012.

Conservative donors like Sheldon Adelson (who supported Gingrich) and Foster Friess (who supported Santorum) will probably wise up and consolidate behind one candidate who they know can win the nomination and the general election, instead of supporting fringe candidates who needlessly drag out the primaries and ding up the establishment guy.
Bush could win the general election?

He has a better chance than guys like Cruz or Paul.
What about the Tea Party? Many there won't vote for a guy who's not only a Bush, but also a friend of the Former Mayor of New York, and supported both Amnesty and Common Core, I'm not saying it's unwinnable, but without winning the Tea Party vote, it'd be pretty darn hard to win.

You may be right, but I suspect the Republican's odds are better if they nominate and electable candidate and they try to get the Tea Party to vote for him, than if they nominate a Tea-Party candidate and try to get the nation to vote for him.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bad time to be a Democrat on: March 28, 2014, 03:40:00 pm
The way I see it, the two parties are quite equal in strength as of now. The Republicans are obviously in better shape than the “Emerging Democratic Majority”- narrative would suggest. They control the House, and a lot of State legislatures and governorships. In 2012 they did very well with against an incumbent president, with a seriously flawed candidate. This year they might pick up enough seats to win control of the Senate.

Don't read too much into the Republican control of the House. Gerrymandering has given them a decided advantage there that likely won't be reflected in the Presidential election in 2016.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How "unstoppable" is Hilary? on: March 28, 2014, 03:19:54 pm
Maybe 'middling' unstoppable? She's in a unique and generally good position, and the Republican bench appears rather weak. While she's very far from a sure thing, most of what could stop her are events completely beyond the Republicans' control. Meanwhile the Republicans have their own internal problem in the form of the Tea Party and their ilk, who can potentially cost the Republicans the general election in several different ways, but don't actually bring much to the table.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Wishful Thinking on: March 28, 2014, 02:46:25 pm
I want to see the two-party system thrashed, trashed, and stomped into the dirt. (But not by some charismatic authoritarian.) I suspect that is significantly  less likely than a global economic collapse and/or WWIII. (And I see those as very low probability events at least in the next 2-4 years.)

To be somewhat more realistic, I'd like to see the Republicans nominate an utter right-wing nut-job Tea Partier and lose the national vote by 20% or more, while getting trounced in the electoral college. Then perhaps the country can move away from the theocratic bigotry and move towards have an at least semi-functional and semi-rational two-party system again.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Would Condoleezza Rice be a good Republican Candidate in 2016? on: March 13, 2014, 04:38:15 pm
She'd be a strong general election candidate, but Hell will need to freeze over fifteen-fold for her to win a GOP Presidential Primary.
This.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What should be Rand Paul's campaign strategy? on: March 11, 2014, 01:27:24 pm
Put on the mantle of an experienced outsider - not part of the business as usual Washington establishment, but able to get things done. Emphasize civil liberties, drug legalization, decreased foreign interventionism, tech and the internet, a truly honest and open government - these are all things he can plausibly claim to support based on his demi-libertarianism, and places where the Obama administration has disappointed many. Push hard to get younger voters on-board, not just the ones who already support him, but the ones who have become disillusioned with Obama. Politely highlight the generational gap between him and his opponent. (If there is such a gap.) Stay away from 'states rights', religion, abortion, and race - he's done enough dog-whistling (and more) to establish his bona fides with those groups already and a misstep too far on any of them and he's likely doomed nationally. Keep the Tea Party supportive but quiet. (And good luck with that.)

The toughest bit for the Rand Paul campaign is going to be when his opponents (possibly in the primary, certainly in the general) bring up his questionable past statements on issues that are supported by the far right, but which are poison in the general. Be prepared for it, do everything possible to make it difficult to connect past statements with the Rand Paul currently running. Ideally, they'll be brought up clumsily during the primary, and can be dismissed as "exaggerated old news" by the time the general rolls around. (Again, good luck with that.) Quietly re-assure the status quo that you won't shake things up too much, the last thing Rand Paul needs is for the modern equivalent of Rockefeller Republicans to decide they need to support Hillary (or whoever his opponent is). Pick a capable conservative minority VP. (Good luck finding one, perhaps Nikki Haley?) Figure out a viable path to 270 (hopefully they'll actually be one) and don't get sidetracked.
14  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Did Bush lie about WMD in Iraq? on: March 11, 2014, 01:05:10 pm
Bush was told it was a "slam dunk."  The national security state can be spectacularly wrong about things sometimes. Even Saddam may have believed he had WMDs. 

I recall a conspiracy-flavored meme drifting around the net a few years ago that claimed Saddam indeed had WMD in the form of chemical weapons and that they had in fact been found, but that the whole thing was covered up by the Bush administration when they belatedly realized that Saddam's chemical arsenal practically had "Made in the USA" stamped on it, with a trail that led right back to Rumsfeld and Cheney.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary Clinton vs. Gov. Mike Pence (R-Indian) on: March 06, 2014, 12:35:38 pm
What does Pence bring to the table, besides strong religious So-Con credentials and apparently some Tea Party approval? (Both of those may help him get the nomination, but would likely hurt him in the general.)
16  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 27, 2014, 02:42:21 pm
More likely, because all of the talked about GOP candidates are dropping like flies

The Republicans need to come up with someone to beat Clinton. But I can't imagine who it could be.

That's the problem I keep running into. There are scenarios where she could lose, but none of them seem to be, well, plausible. For example:

Rand Paul, after running pitch perfect primary and general election campaigns.
Nikki Haley, after successfully navigating the 2014 election goes on to run a brilliant presidential campaign.
Rick Perry, successfully re-brands himself and then runs a great campaign.
Brian Sandoval, with the united Republican Party supporting him all the way.

You can sub in other names: Rubio, Martinez, Rubio, Bush, Jindal, even Corbett or Branstad, but they all run into similar problems. Histories of nutty statements, inability to get the Tea Party or So-Cons on board, negative baggage, and/or questionable campaigning skills. They all add up to a very difficult path to winning the general election, and I just don't see it happening for anyone on the current Republican roster. Sure, there's always the chance of some odd low-probability event happening that paves the way for a reasonably competent Republican, but aside from hoping for a run of luck, I just don't see how the Republicans win the 2016 general election against Hillary. (Although based on post-WWII election history, Generic Republican ought to be a shoe-in.)
17  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Plan to split California into 6 states advances on: February 23, 2014, 02:37:24 pm
a North/South split in CA would make some sense, but this is just ridiculous.
It makes perfect sense... if you're a Silicon Valley oligarch salivating at the thought of getting a private feudal-capitalist mini-state, and don't give a damn what happens to the rest of California.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What should be Jeb Bush's campaign strategy if he runs? on: February 19, 2014, 11:50:13 am
Make sure the public knows his family. He'll be more appealing to voters if they know he's been in an interracial marriage for forty years.

Not to Tea-Party Republicans in this state, he won't be. (I agree it's a good thing overall, but the Tea-Party has helped some truly vile attitudes to creep into mainstream Republicanism.)
19  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 16, 2014, 07:42:01 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?

I don't think they have, at least not in the modern era. Does Harding count?
20  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 14, 2014, 04:18:53 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
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If and when the bottom falls out? on: February 13, 2014, 07:35:03 pm
If you think Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are getting elected, I'd like to know what you're smoking.

I was going to post on how I thought either of them getting elected was rather unlikely, but still within the realms of possibility. And then I started to list how many things would have to go right, including having opponents who do no actual campaigning, and yeah... President Cruz and President Paul are 2016 election results that require "a rogue meteor hit the debate hall killing all the candidates" levels of probability.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why is Colorado so anti-Clinton? on: February 12, 2014, 09:42:53 am
I'm in metropolitan Denver, and aside from the frothing Tea-Party types, I don't see any 'anti-Clinton' sentiment at home, school, work, or out and about. Rand Paul or someone like him might get more votes than the (by comparison) older establishment-insider Hillary, but if the Republicans run a typical old white guy (McCain) or 'corporate tool' (Romney) I suspect she'll win CO.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Potential candidate with the least "skeletons in the closet" on: February 03, 2014, 12:29:52 pm
Scott Walker, Democrats have tried to find dirt on him, yet they can't find anything.

People around him have fallen in scandals. He is either fantastically corrupt or he is incredibly unwise or unlucky in choosing associates -- neither of which bodes well. Democrats could be holding back on exposing the dirt for the 2014 election.

He is one of the scariest figures in American politics. He's Karl Rove with experience in elective politics.

Hasn't he taken a ton of money from the Kochs? While I realize that's not precisely a scandal, it's going to be yet another mark in the "he's a scary right-wing nutjob" column that will, at the least, drive turnout against him.
24  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Reid Publicly Opposes Fast-Track Authority for Obama on: January 30, 2014, 08:26:46 am
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20140129-710760.html

This appears to mean that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be dead in the water at least until after the mid-terms.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: what makes everybody think Hillary Clinton will run in 2016?? on: January 28, 2014, 03:48:19 pm
I've no idea if Hillary will ultimately run or not. But she's very carefully made sure that if she does run, everything she needs to run well will be in place. Given that, it seems quite likely that she's considering it.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines