Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,256,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 1 of 94 1231151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 75 of 7039
  1. #1

    Default **** Elections thread *****

    Instead of clogging the rando thread more


    Even though I think Bush is electorally quite strong, the time is ripe for a "surprise" nominee in the GOP, but I don't think any of the current big names can do it

    Mike Pence can

    http://www.vox.com/2014/9/30/6846367/mike-pence-2016


    The short for why none of the current big names are likely to make it: Walker has too awkward of a speaking style. He may never break 15% because of it. Christie is an asshole and it will absolutely trip him up along the way. Rubio has the same network as Bush. Rand Paul won't get enough establishment backing. Everybody hates Cruz except for the most stringent evangelicals

    Pence could be the guy
    Last edited by wufwugy; 06-09-2015 at 08:44 PM.
  2. #2
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,887
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    I'm not a Rand Paul dickrider by any means but it would be cool have the GOP shift in that direction.
  3. #3
    I dunno, I have a hard time finding things I don't like about Rand Paul. Even on issues I don't exactly like his positions, I think he would end up promoting beneficial policies.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 01-01-2015 at 10:54 PM.
  4. #4
    what dont you like about paul?
  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I dunno, I have a hard time finding things I don't like about Rand Paul. Even on issues I don't exactly like his positions, I think he would end up promoting beneficial policies.

    Yeah, it seems like he's going to be a Libertarian as you're going to get in a general election.

    It's interesting-- I don't consider myself a Libertarian, I've not yet voted republican, yet I'm pretty sure I'd vote Paul in a Clinton/Paul 2016.
  6. #6
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,887
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Paul v Warren would be cool. Two reasonably honest and passionate people with vastly divergent views as opposed to the two flavors of soup just reheated that we see every election.
  7. #7
    Core to the establishment GOP ethic is the need to "son" disobedient foreign actors. It's for this reason that most of the establishment is afraid of Paul. He does have Mitch McConnell on his side, which is a big deal, but Paul winning the nomination would be pretty crazy.

    I see the rationale behind the "don't make me get the belt" foreign policy, but I think it doesn't work that well. For example, even though this would explode most of the heads in the country, I think we would get incredible results by lifting all sanctions. It's a little ironic that the right-wing extols the virtues of trade and markets and economic growth in creating peace, yet it turns a 180 on that philosophy when it comes to oppositional regimes. The establishment doesn't want to legitimize regimes, yet it doesn't realize that the best way to do that is to isolate them, and the best way to subvert regimes is by economic inclusion of its people


    That said, I'm not how sure I think Paul would be a good president. It kinda depends. You really do need a consensus builder in the office. You need the type of person who gets along well with everybody and is hard to attack. The Bush name would hurt Jeb in some circles, but he's also a far more competent speaker and executive than his brother, and it appears he is trying to eschew unneeded controversy. In the current field, Pence could be the guy

    Part of me wants Paul and Walker to just stay where they are. The Midwest is in serious need of people like Walker in order to make it competitive with the Southwest. Paul might be able to change the party more from the senate than presidency.

    If Warren is the Democratic nominee, the GOP wins no matter what. Even Santorum would probably get 53% of the vote. She's the embodiment of command economics
  8. #8
    Calling it now: Walker/Rubio 2016!

    Probably wrong
  9. #9
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,010
    Location
    England
    We've got an election soon. I can't decide if I'm gonna vote for some cunt, or just not bother. I kind of like arguing with stupid people who insist that if I don't vote, I have no right to complain about politics, like they're some kind of fucking authority on the hypothetical rights of discussion.

    If I vote, it'll be Greens. So I might as well not bother, because if they get into power we're fucked.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  10. #10
    what do japanese do when come erection time?

    they vote.
  11. #11
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,077
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    Are the greens Still sprouting on about giving every adult 6k pa for nothing?
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  12. #12
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,010
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by rong View Post
    Are the greens Still sprouting on about giving every adult 6k pa for nothing?
    Yeah I think the Greens consider people to be more important than nuclear weapons.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  13. #13
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,077
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    Fools!
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  14. #14
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,010
    Location
    England
    They'd legalise weed, that's my prime reason for wanting them in. I'd be able to work without having to get a shitty job. They'd also give us a referendum on the EU. Quite how they pay the £300b p/a living wage bill is a mystery, dropping Trident isn't going to raise that much.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  15. #15
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,077
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    They'd legalize weed?

    As in decriminalization or legalization? Because if they'll allow us to sell it like booze and tax it I'd vote for them, well maybe.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  16. #16
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,077
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    Just been on their website, they don't specifically state that they let us buy it from a shop although they do make reference to it as a possibility.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  17. #17
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,010
    Location
    England
    Yeah legalise it entirely, and tax it, treat it the same as alcohol.

    I don't think I'll vote for them unless they can convince me the living wage is viable. I think it's a great idea in principle, but I'm unconvinced it's affordable.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  18. #18
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,887
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    I can think of no more arbitrary figure in economics than that of the "living wage."
  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    They'd legalise weed, that's my prime reason for wanting them in. I'd be able to work without having to get a shitty job.
    Explain?
  20. #20
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,010
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    Explain?
    Is it not obvious? I'd happily grow weed, but the law says I can't. Hence, I am unemployed. Stupid oppressive law stops me doing something productive, so I'll do nothing.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  21. #21
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,077
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    Lol dude, if they legalise Irvine still can't see why anyone would give you a job. Not being intentionally shitty, but surely the stoners who held down a job for the last few years would be ahead of you in the job line or investment queue.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  22. #22
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,010
    Location
    England
    lol wut? Do I need to apply for an interview to go to GroWell and buy some kit?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  23. #23
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,010
    Location
    England
    Also, if I actually wanted a job, then I can fill gaps on my cv, no sweat. References, the lot.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  24. #24
    I thought you meant that but it's such a silly idea I didn't think you could mean that.

    It's almost the equivalent of buying a home brewing kit and thinking you're going to start selling alcohol, there's also nothing to suggest just because something becomes legal it becomes ok to do it yourself.


    edit - Will vote labour because where I live the only result will be labour unless someone like UKIP gets an absolute landslide in their favour which would be horrible.
    Last edited by Savy; 02-03-2015 at 03:55 PM.
  25. #25
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,010
    Location
    England
    It's nothing like a home brew kit, not even remotely comparable. A home brew beer kit is not going to produce a significant quantity of quality beer. It might be drinkable between mates, but good luck selling it. Anyone should be able to tell the difference between proper brewery beer and home brew. As for weed, well it's a different ball game altogether. I've had this discussion with keith, he seems to think that the big companies would squeeze the likes of me out of the market. I disagree on the basis that the big companies would cut corners to save money (cheaper fertiliser, larger crops etc), and use pesticides to ensure mites were under control, and use cheap labour rather than a grower who treats his crop like a pet. This all effects quality. A small home crop should produce outstanding quality weed, assuming the grower is serious, because the grower can afford more care per plant, he's less likely to save a few quid on lower quality fertiliser and nutrients, and he's less likely to spray nasty shit onto the plants to deal with pests. There are predators that can deal with mites, but if the crop is too big then predators are much less effective. There are other methods of pest control, but they're labourious and again suited to the small time grower, not the big boy companies whose only interest is profit. I could go on and on explaining why I would not get priced out of the market, why it's not silly, this is one of the few topics I actually have expertise on. My weed was outstanding when I was growing, I'd have no problem finding a seller in a legal environment. As for whether I'm allowed to or not, that's a different issue. But if it's legalised, well the penalties should be softer. The only reason I don't do it now is because prison is a real concern. If prison wasn't a punishment for growing weed, I'd still be doing it, and the government would not only be saving £500 a month in benefits to me, they'd be getting income tax off me too. Fools.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  26. #26
    getting fed up with scott walker. his social conservatism appears to be just as big as w bush's. i cant support somebody who acts like a leftwing nannystater for his religion.

    it appears that jeb bush is trying to avoid social conservatism. A+. the nominee is going to be either him or walker. walker will win lots of smaller states, but bush will win the ones with the enormous cities, CA NY FL TX IL. bush's main problem will likely be if christie plays big enough spoiler.

    my main fear with bush is that he may end up being like his brother in that he believes government can be a source for good. i suspect it will be different though since the beliefs of the country are much different now than in the aughts.

    bush/rubio beats clinton/whomever
  27. #27
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,842
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    How about Warren G?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  28. #28
    you mean elizabeth warren? she's not running. if she did she might win the nomination but would lose the general without a chance. she can win in a place like new york where they think marx and engels should be rebooted, but in places like ohio she has no prayer
  29. #29
    i have a feeling that it is possible that paul and cruz have made an agreement that one of them will bow out of the race and back the other in order to get him to win the primary. then the one who bowed out will be named vp.
  30. #30
    if hillary wins, imma eat my sock

    dont bump this


    more seroiusly, like back in 2013 i predicted walker would win the nomination. seems to not be too far off. granted now i think rubio will get it
  31. #31
    im undecided on bush. i think if rubio rises to teh top, he'll be more electable, and while bush is much better than his brother, there still seems to be the possibility that he doesn't understand that anything that gives the federal govt any sort of power will just give ground to expand it. i think rubio's criticism of common core is correct even though bush doesnt intend it to be national cirriculum.

    still i support paul. just cut taxes and regulations as much as possible and dont be stupid on foreign policy. i feel like paul is the only one with the right understanding of society. he distinguishes this understanding when he says things like every other republican just wants revenue neutral cuts. those are really just window dressing. the salve to government is lessening it, not rearranging the chairs.
  32. #32
    If it's Clinton vs Bush I probably won't vote. I just... what is even... fuck.
  33. #33
    theyre worlds of different.
  34. #34
    I do not think Bush can win the nomination. At the end of 2014 I was saying he could, but things have happened since. The writing is on the wall that the party views him the way they did Romney, and the kicker is that there are options now.

    The only possible nominees will be Rubio, Walker, or Christie. They're the only candidates with wide appeal combined with strong campaign appeal. Christie has quite a wall to climb, but he has the skills to enter the top tier. People say don't sleep on Kasich, but I don't think he gets base appeal. He's more of an optics candidate (read: ermagerd he from dat Ohio and won Cuyahoga county)

    The base loves Walker, but Rubio is likely to win. He's acceptable to everybody and a rockstar on stage, in interviews, with people, etc.. He's basically Obama in that regard. I think he wins the nomination by way of just kicking everybody's ass. Then I think he wins the general in such a way that makes the Democrats feel the way the GOP did after 2008.

    Hillary will not be winning. She can't. She's a terrible fucking candidate. She made horrible decision after horrible decision in 2008 and lost because of it. She's already repeating and nothing is going to stop her from drowning. The Democrats have bought their own bullshit about an electoral college wall, demographic determinism, and her inevitability. Smart Dems should be looking at this situation with intense worry. She has no resonant message (and won't get one), she is terrible on the trail, and the party is not going to realize it's eating itself until she loses what it thought was an unlosable general election. The Dems and the media are going to be incredibly surprised when they don't grow women voters by much, lose men significantly, and win Asians, Hispanics, and blacks by much smaller portions than they expect.

    If I'm DNC chair, I'm prepping for a center-left candidate to win 2024. That's the next real shot the Dems have IMO. Even then I don't see it happening since Vice President Walker will be fantastically positioned to continue the relatively beloved eight years of Rubio.
  35. #35
    The Bush dynasty is one of the worst corrupt criminal cabals the world has ever seen, it's definitely interesting they're trying to get another one elected. As declassified CIA documents and a particularly incriminating picture show, senior was involved in the Kennedy assassination, while the dimwitted junior, who only got the job because he was a reliable Skull and Crossbones stooge, brought us attrocities like the Iraq war and 9/11. I read Seb has a lot less actual backing than he thinks, my take is that people are wisening up. There has to be something better than another Bush or Clinton right?
  36. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by jackvance View Post
    The Bush dynasty is one of the worst corrupt criminal cabals the world has ever seen, it's definitely interesting they're trying to get another one elected. As declassified CIA documents and a particularly incriminating picture show, senior was involved in the Kennedy assassination, while the dimwitted junior, who only got the job because he was a reliable Skull and Crossbones stooge, brought us attrocities like the Iraq war and 9/11. I read Seb has a lot less actual backing than he thinks, my take is that people are wisening up. There has to be something better than another Bush or Clinton right?
    how do you know that stuff is true?
    Last edited by wufwugy; 04-21-2015 at 03:07 PM.
  37. #37
    Word is that Cruz's number one goal is to win the nomination (duh) and number two goal is to stop Bush from winning the nomination. Bush is not winning. The biggest role he will play is endorsing Rubio. IMO just has to optimize timing.
  38. #38
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,887
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Not sure I'm down with all the Bush conspiracy theories. Basically every president in history has been pretty corrupt and dumb, so no argument there other than discriminating against corrupt idiots named Bush.
  39. #39
    There is a possibility Lindsay Graham plays kingmaker. If he runs and gains enough support, he could exit in a timely fashion and throw his weight behind a candidate in the South Carolina primary. I suspect his choice would be Rubio, because of foreign policy and immigration and the fact that Graham's biggest issue is electability.

    The nominee doesn't have to win Iowa (and likely won't). It's debatable if the nominee needs to win New Hampshire. My guess is the nominee will do very well in NH but maybe not win it. If Rubio did that and Graham supported him, he could edge out SC then have the momentum and star power to edge out Bush in Florida. Then the tale's told.

    I really do think Rubio takes it away. It just seems nobody can compete with his total arsenal. The guy is a natural at every aspect of campaigns.
  40. #40
    somebody should tell the gop voters that anti-immigration is the extreme left national socialist position and that deterring immigration is burning money for non-immigrants.

    im sure that'll only happen when somebody tells democrat voters that an inherent element of regulation is that it favors the wealthy.
  41. #41
    It would certainly be interesting if Clinton got the nomination, because it would be my first presidential election, post voting age, where I have no horse in the race and I can be a detached observer.
  42. #42
    boost, who do you pick? what are your priorities? what would give you a dog in the race?
  43. #43
    I'm just stuck in the middle, and I really don't think there will be a candidate that I can live with voting for. Maybe Warren? Clinton is a hawk, and not only would she be willing to double down on bad overreaching foreign policy, but she'd probably double down on the drug war. I guess Paul is interesting, but he holds some lame small guv'mint (not to be confused with Libertarian small government) positions and I think, beyond that, he'd have to pander too much to the republican base to win the nomination.

    The bad things about Warren are just things that make for a mediocre, but benign president. It's the low risk, high potential option.
  44. #44
    If Carson can somehow win the nomination, Hillary is in deep shit. He would easily pull 20% of black voters and could possibly even take Pennsylvania. There is potential he could take up to 40% of blacks, which is mind-blowing, and would open the door to the media covering the idea that it isn't the welfare state that has black people voting Democratic but the feeling of marginalization.

    Apparently Carson has been a hero in some black circles for a long time now.
  45. #45
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,887
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    I've never been more underwhelmed by an American election than I am about this one. Hillary is so boring and worthless and she'll almost definitely win the nomination. Bernie jumping in only ensured that fact more, as he would siphon away far-left votes from any third candidate. The republican primary is admittedly a lot more exciting and I'll probably be cheering for whoever they pick, even if he's a religious fuckwad. They'll probably be more war-mongery but the U.S. will always be the world police no matter who sits in the Oval. At least with republicans there will be a reasonable hope of stopping the expansion of the welfare state and the nanny state. Neither side is going to end the police state / drug war either. There's just no good reason to vote democrat because they're impotent reforming current policy and disastrous at implementing new policy.
  46. #46
    Stick a fork in Hill-dawg, she's fucking done. Bush is done too. Neither of them know it. Bush will find out sooner. Hill-dawg will find out on Nov 4th. If there was a mildly credible candidate running against her, she'd lose the nomination, but their bench is as deep as a valley is tall.

    Rubio wins all. Bank it.
  47. #47
    Part of me is worried that the left will keep winning national elections until the non-left plays identity politics. When you look at the rate of the black vote for Democrats and contrast it with the prosperity of Democrat controlled legislative regions, I'm left with a pit in my stomach. It influences me to believe the hidden narrative by conservatives that it has become taboo to not be a Democrat if you're black. Given that the Democratic Party's coalition's backbone is the near 1:1 ratio it gets from black turnout to votes given, the country may not revolutionize until black voters stop backing the Democrats so religiously. This wouldn't be a problem if the Democratic policies were helping black communities, but clearly they're not. They're not even coming close. But what seems to be the story from black Republicans is that black Republicans are pariahs. Thus, the cycle of voting for the problem perpetuates.

    It suggests that the GOP needs to nominate Ben Carson, so it can finally get rid of the delusion that conservatives don't care about black people. But Carson will never be nominated because the GOP wouldn't nominate somebody for the reason of identity. It's a shame Carson doesn't have political history. If he did, he might be the favorite.
  48. #48
    That said, if Bush gets elected, it may be the beginning of the end of the Democratic stranglehold on urban votes (not just black votes). The rationale for why is that it is likely that Bush will make education reform a priority and that it will include a national mandate for school vouchers. This would pretty much get rid of failing schools and would vastly increase the social mobility of inner city youths.

    Given that Bush is the only person running on what he believes and the center at the same time...
  49. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Stick a fork in Hill-dawg, she's fucking done. Bush is done too. Neither of them know it. Bush will find out sooner. Hill-dawg will find out on Nov 4th. If there was a mildly credible candidate running against her, she'd lose the nomination, but their bench is as deep as a valley is tall.

    Rubio wins all. Bank it.
    I'll take the field against Rubio.
    So you click their picture and then you get their money?
  50. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by kingnat View Post
    I'll take the field against Rubio.
    Yeah at this point I'm starting to agree. Granted, now is not the time he would breakout, and he'll have ample opportunity to do just that later.

    I now think it's going to be Bush. I overestimated how well Walker would do outside of the Midwest and how important it is to the base to not nominate a Senator. Bush probably places in IA, takes top two in NH, then Graham endorses him and the establishment rallies and he wins SC then the string of southern states.

    But now that I'm saying it, I think it's not going to look anything like that. It'll be a mess. There could be like 6 big names left in the race even after NV. Bush probably has the most equity, but it could last quite a while and one of many could take it.
  51. #51
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,887
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    I guess hillary's like 66% chance to be the next potus
  52. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    I guess hillary's like 66% chance to be the next potus
    I think almost every bit of analysis the media gives about this is retrospection to inform the future. Every decade sees big differences in the voting coalitions. There are also a bunch of different reasons she isn't likely to perform as well as people think.

    I think the Democratic coalition is dying either 2016 or 2020. Labor is slowly leaving, and the ceiling Obama hit on minorities is well above what it'll be here on out. Hillary will probably get a little tick in white women while a decrease in every other relative to him.

    I wouldn't know how to predict the big blow, but it would come the day that urban areas don't march lockstep with Democrats. I think it's coming soon. If Carson performed fine, he would probably be able to do this, but Rubio could also. It wouldn't take much of this to turn PA red. I think turnout focus alone by somebody like Walker or Kasich or Paul could do that. But somebody like Carson would give a blowout, just because he's an intelligent black Republican.

    I think a Bush/Kasich ticket takes all of IA, CO, VA, OH, and FL from Hillary.
  53. #53
    I also wanna say that if you step back and look at the entire picture of what's going on, Hillary won't be winning. The smart money is on her, but I like to push my political predictions to the very edge.
  54. #54
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,887
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    yeah, lets adjust it to 60%. 95% to win the nomination, and 64% to win the general. Republicans just don't have anyone with the name recognition. She will enjoy an almost incumbent-level advantage in the general. On top of that she will siphon conservative females and increase female turnout.
  55. #55
    I think incumbency is a disadvantage here. Even with his dynamite coalition, I think Obama wouldn't get reelected. The Washington establishment and some cultural liberals wanted Obama in 2012 but I don't think would want him by now.
  56. #56
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,887
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    what i mean by incumbent is that she's such a household name its like every state is her home state. Nobody knows who the fuck any of the gops are except that one has last name of bush.
  57. #57
    the polling greatly overestimates her based on that. the fact that rubio and paul had gotten even or close in pennsylvania is pretty crazy. their "comfort recognition" is pretty low compared to hers.
  58. #58
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,042
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    I guess hillary's like 66% chance to be the next potus
    +1, even I'm seeing her as the best play. A capable sleazeball that checks off a historical box. What's to say no to?
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  59. #59
    Since I'm the guy who says the GOP wins this >50%, I'll run down a list:

    - Clinton is bad at campaigns. That was the deciding factor for Obama beating her. She was disorganized.

    - She's still disorganized. She's surrounded by yes men. Things are not going to change here.

    - She's scandal-ridden. The Clinton's tend to do fine with these, but they each take a toll.

    - She's not Bill. His appeal was center-of-American, middle-of-the-road. She's New Yorky.

    - She hates the media, and the media is the one that gets to tell the story.

    - She will not repeat Obama's performance with ethnic minorities.

    - Her appeal to women will likely give her just a small bump at best. Despite what the media suggests, unlike ethnic identity, gender identity doesn't play much into voters' decisions.

    - She is likely to run to the left; whereas the GOP nominee is likely to not run to the right that much.

    - The only swing state she likely has extra appeal in is New Hampshire, for the reason that they love putting women in office for some reason.

    - The rundown of the other swing states: Florida won't go to her if Bush or Rubio are the nominee. If it's anybody else she probably still loses Florida due to lower ethnic minority turnout and southern whites distaste for her. Ohio is not fond of her and loves centrist Republicans. She likely has a ceiling of progressives in Ohio; whereas the GOP doesn't have as much of a ceiling. Colorado probably has even more white people who dislike her than Obama. Its blue swing was all about rejection of social conservatism and anti-immigration, but those won't likely be issues this cycle. I couldn't imagine her ever winning Iowa. Its progressives don't like her and the rest tend to be right or right of center. Obama won Virginia because of blacks and the Washington establishment wanting him. 2016 will not give her his advantages.

    - Being Sec of State will not help her much. Obama screwed the pooch on that one too.

    - Running as a continuation of Obama's policies would be required of her, yet it likely won't win it. By now, most people do not think his policies have succeeded much. If the GOP puts up a reasonable candidate with a good message, it will be grasped.

    - The cultural mood is entering real backlash territory. Every where we look we're being told women are oppressed and minorities are oppressed and we're getting tired of it because we do not see it true in our personal lives.

    - Much of her support is coronation in style. Democrats support her despite many things they don't like. Contrast this to the Republicans who are highly concerned with nominating the best this time around. This means that the general will be contested by a Democrat who isn't the best choice and a Republican who is.

    - Demographic determinism is wrong. We're already undergoing a big shift, and a new one will happen soon and without warning.

    - A third term of a not-enormously-popular party is a rare thing.

    - She won't want it as much as the GOP nominee. For example, she is probably running because she wants to be president because she's always wanted to be president. Bush is likely running because he cares deeply about specific policies and the direction of the country.

    - The best candidate always wins. Always. She thinks she's entitled and her message blows. Lots of Republicans would beat her.
  60. #60
    Two more

    - There will be major turnout for Bernie in the primaries, and she won't make him her VP. During the general, she will run to the center. The white liberals who support Bernie will hate this and turnout will be suppressed. The left tends to only turnout big time when they're chasing a dream. She won't be their dream

    - The youngest demographic does not trend Democratic like during Obama's elections. 18-29 is actually pretty bad for Democrats in comparison. They will not turnout for her (but some would for Bernie). On principle, they trend more Republican than usual. In specific, if the GOP nominee has a resounding message, the youth demographic will go GOP at probably 55% or more. This is why I think Rubio would be one of the strongest candidates. He'd get a whole lot more youths than anybody is saying. He would likely turn a few solid blue states red too, like Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wisconsin.
  61. #61
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,042
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Since I'm the guy who says the GOP wins this >50%, I'll run down a list:

    - Clinton is bad at campaigns. That was the deciding factor for Obama beating her. She was disorganized.

    - She's still disorganized. She's surrounded by yes men. Things are not going to change here.
    Came across this article a while back. Could be some early placed piece to help imbue her campaign with unearned competence, but it's interesting none-the-fewer.

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/robby-mook-hillary-clinton-campaign-manager-profile

    edit no idea why the link I post takes to an article I didn't. Try this https://archive.is/yZPfb
    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-03-2015 at 11:10 AM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  62. #62
    I'd put Hillary at 65/35 for the nomination. I love Bernie but there's just very little chance that he can get over being "socialist". Certainly not in the general. I think Jeb is more like 80/20. In the general I'm not too sure. I think Hillary is probably slightly favored since she can hammer on so many things. I don't really buy the fact that Obama wouldn't be likely to get re-elected given the actual state of the Union. The Republican party hammers on so many things for which I haven't seen a lot of supportive data. They is definitely 35% of voters that fucking hate him for some reason or another, and I actually think there is a larger proportion of people that hate Hillary at the same level. So I think Obama vs. Jeb would be something around 70/30, whereas Hillary v Jeb is likely closer to 55/45. Obviously these are pulled out of my ass, but I think I'd put money behind them.
    So you click their picture and then you get their money?
  63. #63
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,887
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    65/35 for the nomination is way too low for hillary. I disagree deeply with Bernie on economic issues, but I want him to win the nomination just because he's a thoughtful, passionate guy who's strong on civil liberties. Also, I'd like to see a general election where the candidates don't agree on 80% of the shit, including the drug war and the actual wars. But as much as I'd like to see Bernie win the nom, it's just not going to happen, IMO. Hillary is probably over 90% to be the candidate.
  64. #64
    Bernie does have a chance. Nobody knows quite what the balance of power between establishment and populous Democratic Party is. I think the party probably has too many non-whites for him to win. His appeal is pretty standard white labor protectionism, college liberals, and could be elderly. Hillary will probably do well enough with non-whites to win.

    As far as Obama getting reelected goes, three main things have happened since 2012 that were not present before the election: (1) foreign affairs fell apart. (2) Obamacare exited the abstract. (3) The GOP got a bunch of great candidates who will run on a hopeful message.

    I don't think most people think the state of the union is that strong. NGDP growth has been subpar and a lot of independents believe it could be better, but they didn't want to vote for Romney because the GOP focused too much on social issues, and Romney was never a good candidate (even though he may have been a great president).

    I think Jeb is a bit better on his feet than Hillary and more personally likable, and he's the only candidate playing the center. I also think Hillary's biggest policy strength in the primary (supporting a pathway to citizenship) will be abandoned in the general. If an election is about immigration, the conservative side will win. Hillary will probably pull back on her pathway to citizenship comments and Jeb will look great to Latinos. She'll be on record wishy washy and he'll be the guy married to a Mexican, fluent in el espanol, and the guy who believably supports a sympathetic and lawful approach. Hillary will also have to run as a continuation of Obama's foreign policy, which is fine in a primary, but a disaster in the general.

    I don't think the Democrats have much to run on, honestly. They could have run on gay marriage and won, but SCOTUS saw that one coming. They can't run on education because few believe their policy of just increasing spending is any good except some youths who usually don't vote. If they run on foreign policy they lose. If they run on preserving SS and Medicare exactly as they are, they lose too much ethnic minority vote. They have no message on jobs other than raising the minimum wage or stimulus on infrastructure, neither of which would attract any swing or new votes.

    I don't know what they can do other than run to the center like Bill Clinton did. I think that would work, but I don't think Hillary thinks she could get away with it in the primary. She should be trying to barely win the primary and focusing on commandeering several GOP issues like following immigration laws, reducing government intervention into business and personal lives, and not raising taxes. It's what 90s Bill would do. Even then I don't think the Democratic politicians would want that since they're fundamentally against those policies unlike they were (rhetorically) in the 90s .
  65. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    65/35 for the nomination is way too low for hillary. I disagree deeply with Bernie on economic issues, but I want him to win the nomination just because he's a thoughtful, passionate guy who's strong on civil liberties. Also, I'd like to see a general election where the candidates don't agree on 80% of the shit, including the drug war and the actual wars. But as much as I'd like to see Bernie win the nom, it's just not going to happen, IMO. Hillary is probably over 90% to be the candidate.
    You're probably right on here. I would also love Bernie to win the nomination. I feel like he has a lot of exciting ideas that he is deeply passionate about. He needs to get the word out about everything he has done for civil liberties and for blacks and minorities over the decades. I mean the guy heard the "I Have a Dream" speech LIVE, ffs. He's been there for a long time and no one really knows that at all. I think he (and Dems) could run on pathway to immigration but also corporate taxes, Citizens United (which no one but Bernie seems to be talking about so far) and student debt (and college tuition in general) reform.

    I agree that Jeb likely has the easiest vote to the nomination and perhaps the presidency. He's a very safe looking/acting candidate so far, but he'll also be in the cross hairs of every conservative who will all be trying to look the most conservative. I think he'll get chewed up like Romney did during the nomination process.
    So you click their picture and then you get their money?
  66. #66
    I think the person I might support the most on policy is Rick Perry. He seems to be tax and regulate in the sort of way Texas makes you without the focus on social conservatism on his back. His recent diagnosis for why Democratic policies have failed blacks and his prescription for how to improve black communities are spot on.

    I'm close to writing Rubio off for my support. His education ideas are crap. They're all small beans that couldn't have any huge results and they also involve increasing government intervention. His reform conservatism is too useless. Education reform isn't hard. All you have to do is pull an Obama and mandate the states implement voucher programs and turn federal funding into block grants. This would result in a great increase in efficiency and effectiveness.
  67. #67
    What has Bernie done for minorities, other than rhetorical support? Rhetorical support is important, for sure, but policies far more so.
  68. #68
    Trump needs to pull an Into The Wild.
  69. #69
    If Trump runs as an independent, it may finally kill off the hardline anti-immigration stance in the GOP. Bush would win the GOP nomination and run centrist and the most pro-Mexican candidate and the GOP would no longer have the pressure from the hardliners since they would go towards Trump. Also Trump would sap some of the votes from the far left, where the special interest union protectionism aligns well with anti-immigration.

    In such a scenario, especially given Bush's pro-technology stance contrasted with Hillary's anti-technology stance, the GOP could even win California again.
  70. #70
    I don't have my head buried in politics, but your idea that Trump would draw far left votes must be some weird attempt at comedy, right?
  71. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    I don't have my head buried in politics, but your idea that Trump would draw far left votes must be some weird attempt at comedy, right?
    He would get some. Not a lot, but some. His immigration stance is not that much different than Bernie's.

    The far left is very similar on immigration to the far right. In a recent interview, Ezra Klein was shocked (shocked!) when Bernie said he doesn't support increasing immigration. It'd be nice if Ezra already knew that the far left labor type is very xenophobic and protectionist, just like the far right nationalist type. This also goes back to how fascism and socialism aren't really that different. They have the same brainchildren and same basic philosophy. They don't contrast that well to each other like most people think. The real contrast is socialism vs capitalism or statism vs non-statism.
  72. #72
    Trump isn't to be considered though. His popularity is a product of media and name recognition. Once the primaries start he will be set on the back burner.
  73. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Trump isn't to be considered though. His popularity is a product of media and name recognition. Once the primaries start he will be set on the back burner.
    Yeah, for sure. That's been my feeling from the start-- any time anyone mentions Trump as a potential nominee, I just have to laugh and say two words, "Herman Cain."

    It's really funny-- and by funny I mean terribly disturbing, how short of a political memory people have.
  74. #74
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,887
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    My completely amateur picks for republican nom chances are Bush, Walker, Paul, Rubio, in that order.

    (edit, with all four being over 10% likely to be nommed)
  75. #75
    Recent polling is showing that Trump's support mostly comes from long-time admirers.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •