Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 22, 2017, 07:27:01 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 15
51  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who might be David French's running mate? on: June 02, 2016, 11:49:00 am
Has it even been confirmed that French is Kristol's choice for candidate? Maybe this is just a rumor that got out of control. Kristol hasn't made an official announcement yet.
52  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: General James Mattis 2016 on: April 06, 2016, 11:14:58 pm
I think this is worth bumping, if for nothing else than some Jeb/Romney advisor John Noonan is clamoring for the good General to be the Brokered Candidate.

I find it to be both amusing, and also interesting that the high-profile military commanders of the last few years (Petraeus, McChrystal) have all been politically eliminated by Obama-related scandals and sackings so now Republicans (or at least one) are rallying around a pretty apolitical soldier.
53  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: opinion of Tulsi Gabbard on: March 03, 2016, 02:42:11 pm
Her shilling for the BJP and not even being Indian is sort of like Evangelicals who are really pro-Netanyahu, I suppose.
54  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Could the Democrats get any celebrity presidential candidates? on: March 03, 2016, 02:33:09 pm
The GOP seems to have more celebrities in its ranks, which is funny because everyone says Hollywood skews Democrat. Besides Trump, you've got Reagan, but also billionaires and CEOs like Cain, Fiorina, and Forbes, who are sort of celebrities in the sense that they're non-governmental public figures. And Schwarzenegger could have been one of them, if it wasn't for the Constitution.

Even for celebrities who aren't actually politicians, you have rumors like Joe Scarborough being Trump's running mate, or Mike Ditka running against Obama for the Illinois Senate seat in 2004.

So besides Al Franken, did/does/will the Democrats have any celebrity star power as actual elected officials? Any that could one day run for president?
55  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jesse Ventura will run for President if Sanders loses the Dem nomination on: March 01, 2016, 03:05:33 pm
Can't he run for the Reform Party?
56  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Donald Trump's Republican Party on: February 29, 2016, 08:08:23 pm
Honestly, capitalism uber alles is also a relic of the Cold War. Today, without Soviets or foreign revolutionaries as our enemy, as Red China being a comically exaggerated example of horrific corrupt crony capitalism, the need to protect capitalism for the sake of capitalism is becoming less important. Tea Party fanaticism might be the very last gasp of it in the GOP. The future of the Republicans might be to "pragmatically" capitalist, or support free markets when convenient but not in all cases.
57  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Alternative Elections / Would Ted have been Trump, if Donald hadn't run? on: February 29, 2016, 07:51:40 pm
If Trump hadn't run today, Ted Cruz would have been the major insurgent candidate. With zealous supporters from both evangelicals and the Tea Party, a radical policy, solid fundraising, and a whole lot of problems, he would have given the GOP establishment headaches the same way Trump is giving them aneurysms right now. Between how detested he is by his fellow senators and other politicians, being born in Canada, and an eminently punchable face, the RNC would have looked at him as the general-unelectable candidate to quash. Media everywhere would be asking whether if Jeb (or Christie? Walker?) would be able to beat the threat of a Tea Party takeover of the GOP, and the establishment would also be trying to groom Rubio as a middle ground compromise candidate between the two. (Maybe they would suggest him as the VP to one of the establishments. Funny to have a dual-Florida ticket if it became Bush/Rubio.)

Is the above an accurate assessment? The really interesting thing about this election is how the GOP is suffering from two revolts, with Trump's greatly overshadowing Cruz's. And how Trump's rise has both stolen the Tea Party's anti-establishment grassroots fire, and left their small-government-anti-tax-social-conservative program in the dust.
58  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Whatever happened to the Ron Paul Revolution? on: February 29, 2016, 07:38:28 pm
So am I wrong in suggesting that there's any significant overlap between Ron Paul supporters, this year's Rand Paul's supporters, and the Tea Party? It sounds like while the TP is in favor of some of the policy ideas that's on the same road to libertarianism (starve the beast, cut taxes, government out of many places), the people supporting Rand Paul and the people supporting Ted Cruz have little to no overlap at all.
59  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Alternative Elections / Chaos Race 2016 on: February 29, 2016, 07:34:33 pm
Variation of the War of the Five POTUS.

Trump wins majority delegates at the RNC in July 21, but the Republican establishment freaks out and keeps the nomination from him via brokered convention, and Rubio becomes the anointed candidate. Embittered and still uber-popular, Trump reverses his pledge to Norquist, runs as an independent under the Make America Great Again Party. He also makes several other populist moves, including rescinding his anti-tax pledge to Norquist, putting forth a new economic plan that makes more concessions to the middle class, as well as suggesting big infrastructural programs. He also declares the need to "Cure Public Health Once and for All" with his own upcoming healthcare plan that includes "stopping Big Pharma from overcharging you" also anti-epidemic initiatives that would "work with the FBI and military" to "prevent Zika and ebola from ever endangering American citizens." Ben Carson is rumored to have been asked to serve as his new Surgeon General.

Alone in his hotel room at the RNC, Ted Cruz watches the events on television. He bows his head in prayer. Several minutes later, he raises his infamous visage and declares that the convention pick was unjust and refuses to abide by it. In an emergency rally, he refuses to concede to Rubio and instead declares a "righteous crusade" to wrest the Republican Party from "Rubio's neoconservatism and pro-amnesty globalism" and "Trump's secret socialist sympathies." Though only a minority of the evangelicals and 'very conservative' Tea Party partisans who previously supported him rally to his Real Republican Party, he also bleeds some MAGAP folks who are betrayed by Trump's apparent support for big government programs.

A week later, the Democratic nominee is Hillary, who prevails in a very close primary fight and is widely perceived to have been selected via brokered convention (despite the rumor being most likely untrue). She wins the nomination, loses the mandate. Revolt risk in the Democratic party is at record heights. The RNC is already over for a week and both Cruz and Trump have already announced third-party candidacies. Anti-Hillary groups, furious at the party establishment but perceiving progressive victory to be inevitable since the right-wing is divided, switch to an unprecedentedly massive write-in campaign for Sanders. Despite only capturing the attention, much less support of a minority of formerly pro-Bernie voters, disgruntlement at the party machinery and discomfort at voting for Hillary causes uncertainty in many Democrats, especially with the youth. Sanders himself rejects any sort of third party run, but his movement has marched onwards without him, intent on drafting him via write-in; direct democracy by sidestepping the party nomination process entirely. He also does not endorse or support Hillary, despite officially conceding to her at the convention. His supporters insist that he can be drafted, and that the three-way Republican split means that a Democratic victory is inevitable.

True to his words, former Gov. Jesse Ventura launches his candidacy with Sanders' official defeat in the primary. As part of this, he resurrects the Reform Party label.

In other third party news, the Libertarian Party chooses a unity Gary Johnson-John McAfee joint ticket. The experience of Johnson and the celebrity antics of McAfee (as well as his personal wealth) helps the party attain an unprecedented level (for the Libertarians, that is) of exposure and semi-respectability. Let's say 2000 Nader-levels of general public awareness.

Amidst all of this, Bloomberg jumps in as centrist unity figure.

So, uh, how does this play out?
60  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Whatever happened to the Ron Paul Revolution? on: February 29, 2016, 07:19:28 pm
So his son's run this year fizzled out. The primary field was overcrowded, and the antiestablishmentarian fire was stolen by Trump, and to some degree by Ted Cruz. But my question is also ideological: was Ron Paul's libertarianism specific only to him in the GOP? Rand Paul differed with his dad on several issues, and in some ways seemed slightly more of a conventional Republican. And the rise of the Tea Party basically created a hard-right anti-government, anti-tax movement that stole many of the Ron Paul Revolution's ideas anyway. And it seems like most "conventional" libertarians are in the Libertarian Party.

The Ron Paul Revolution was never going to sweep the GOP, but I'm curious if it could ever be a force again in future elections like it did in 2008. Or maybe it was a one time thing, like Perot in '92. If a Republican doesn't win this year, Rand Paul could run in 2020, but I'm imagining he'd probably get even less support than he does now.
61  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Effects of a Sanders nomination on leftist third party candidacies on: February 29, 2016, 07:00:14 pm
Because people don't like to waste their votes. Third parties improving significantly are up there with electoral college ties and brokered conventions - things that are constantly speculated about every election but never actually happen.

I think you're misreading what I'm saying. I'm suggesting that if Sanders was the nomination, some of the third party votes for leftist candidates might go to him. Similar to fusionism in the past, where Populists voted Democrat after William Jennings Bryan became the nominee.
62  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Effects of a Sanders nomination on leftist third party candidacies on: February 29, 2016, 06:55:25 pm
Why not?
63  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Effects of a Sanders nomination on leftist third party candidacies on: February 29, 2016, 06:45:38 pm
This is a really obscure question for a rather unlikely scenario. Let's say Sanders somehow beats Hillary for the Democratic nomination. Does that mean many votes that would otherwise go to Jill Stein of the Green Party and Gloria La Riva of Party for Socialism and Liberation, not to mention all of the even smaller and lesser-known third parties, might go to him?
64  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Should Rick Perry have continued his campaign, and effects? on: February 24, 2016, 08:17:28 pm
Could he have made any amusing impacts at the debates, like when Christie short-circuited Rubio?
65  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Should Rick Perry have continued his campaign, and effects? on: February 24, 2016, 07:58:30 pm
Looks like things worked out for him in court: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/us/texas-court-drops-criminal-case-against-rick-perry.html?_r=0

So what happens if he had not dropped out?
66  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bloomberg runs. Who benefits the republican candidate or democrat? Swing-states? on: February 24, 2016, 07:13:51 pm
Bloomberg is often viewed by liberals as an authoritarian crypto-racist for the Stop and Frisk program.
67  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bloomberg runs. Who benefits the republican candidate or democrat? Swing-states? on: February 23, 2016, 12:41:28 pm
So the National Review editorial board, establishment GOP intelligentsia, and other people who follow them would rather hold their noses and vote for Trump, or stay at home, rather than vote for Bloomberg?
68  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bloomberg runs. Who benefits the republican candidate or democrat? Swing-states? on: February 22, 2016, 07:16:31 pm
Bloomberg is big money, corporate type. Sure he's socially liberal but he's also very fiscally conservative. Establishment/Rockerfeller Republicans, Wall Street types, plutocrats, Grover Norquist anti-taxers will flock to him instead of the pseudo-populist Trump.

Face it, he'll cut into both candidates, just not evenly.
69  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Would Webb be the perfect VP choice for a Bloomberg run? on: February 22, 2016, 06:33:34 pm
I just thought there was nice symmetry in terms of how they're geographically and social class/background-wise opposite to each other.
70  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Alternative Elections / 2016: The War of the Five POTUS on: February 22, 2016, 06:32:36 pm
Trump wins majority delegates at the RNC in July 21, but the Republican establishment freaks out and keeps the nomination from him via brokered convention, and Rubio becomes the anointed candidate. Embittered and still uber-popular, Trump reverses his pledge to Norquist, runs as an independent under the Make America Great Again Party.

A week later, the Democratic nominee is Hillary, who prevails in a very close primary fight and is widely perceived to have been selected via brokered convention (despite the rumor being most likely untrue). She wins the nomination, loses the mandate. Revolt risk in the Democratic party is at record heights. RNC is already over for a week and Trump has already announced his third-party candidacy. Anti-Hillary groups, furious at the party establishment but perceiving progressive victory to be inevitable since the right-wing is divided, switch to an unprecedentedly massive write-in campaign for Sanders. Despite only capturing the attention, much less support of a minority of formerly pro-Bernie voters, disgruntlement at the party machinery and discomfort at voting for Hillary causes uncertainty in many Democrats, especially with the youth. Sanders himself rejects any sort of third party run, but his movement has marched onwards without him, intent on drafting him via write-in; direct democracy by sidestepping the party nomination process entirely. He also does not endorse or support Hillary, despite officially conceding to her at the convention.

Bloomberg jumps in as centrist unity figure. Soft five-way race. Clinton (D) vs. Rubio (R) vs. Trump (M) vs. Sanders (D/S- write-in only) vs. Bloomberg (U)

Who would the likely running mates be, and how would this play out?

Feel free to swap Rubio for some other establishment figure as well, if the RNC feels that he can't beat Hillary. Maybe Romney?
71  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Would Webb be the perfect VP choice for a Bloomberg run? on: February 22, 2016, 06:23:55 pm
Incoherence works when faced with the already incoherent populism of Trump, and the extreme (for American audiences) retro-New Deal social democracy of Sanders, though. Both running mates just need to be mainstream enough to be vaguely socially liberal, fiscally conservative, ultra-moderate to appeal to people alarmed by the other two.

Agreed that it'd be low energy, but then who would be better, and willing, to run with Bloomberg? Nader?
72  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Would Webb be the perfect VP choice for a Bloomberg run? on: February 22, 2016, 06:14:28 pm
Not that Bloomberg is going to run, but if he did (against Trump and Sanders- do not consider this scenario if Rubio or Hillary are nominated).

  • Already considered running as an independent. (Though rejected it)
  • Balances the ticket very well (Bloomberg is northern, wealthy, business magnate, Jewish; Webb is southern, more working class, Vietnam veteran, WASP)
  • Both are already on the moderate-fringes of the party (Bloomberg is a Rockefeller-RINO type, Webb is pretty Blue Dog), but in a way more mainstream than Sanders or Trump.
  • Can appeal to the status quo, older, white, male demographic (establishment Republicans, conservative Democrats who can't stomach Trump). So essentially a pseudo-bipartisan unity ticket.

On the other hand the two cancel each other out on gun control, among other issues. Who else would be good for Bloomberg?
73  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Should Jon Huntsman have run this year? on: February 22, 2016, 03:58:51 pm
Okay, how well would he have done if Kasich hadn't run?

I think despite being a better candidate and person in general, he would have done worse than Kasich, probably. He had his reputation from 2012 and working for Obama that would have held him back.
74  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Should Jon Huntsman have run this year? on: February 22, 2016, 03:04:54 pm
Given that Kasich is doing better than he did, and that Huntsman is the real deal, he could have at least had a somewhat honorable defeat by Super Tuesday.
75  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Potential Bernie Sanders Zombie Campaign? on: February 21, 2016, 03:30:51 pm
Saw this online:

Quote
the D nominee is Hillary, who prevails in a very close primary fight and is widely perceived to have been selected via brokered convention (despite the rumor being most likely untrue). She wins the nomination, loses the mandate. Revolt risk in the Democratic party is at record heights. RNC is already over for a week and Trump has already announced his third-party candidacy. Anti-Hillary groups, furious at the party establishment but perceiving progressive victory to be inevitable since the right-wing is divided, switch to an unprecedentedly massive write-in campaign for Sanders. Despite only capturing the attention, much less support of a minority of formerly pro-Bernie voters, disgruntlement at the party machinery and discomfort at voting for Hillary causes uncertainty in many Democrats, especially with the youth. Sanders himself rejects any sort of third party run, but his movement has marched onwards without him, intent on drafting him via write-in; direct democracy by sidestepping the party nomination process entirely. Bloomberg jumps in as centrist unity figure. Soft five-way race. The War of the Five POTUS.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 15


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines