2016 US Presidential Race - Landslide or Laughing Stock?

[moth]

The call to get government out of the way seems liberating, but I like the government in the way of people who would like to dump their trash in the air or water.
I like the government in the way of a lot of things, and blindly assuming the U.S. government is always the problem (or solution) is a fallacy.
How many conservative heros have we seen like Rick Scott or Cliven bundy who are just trying to protect their place at the government nipple by calling for getting government out of the way?

I hope you are right about the internet, but it seems to be as Balkanized as the rest of the country.

[Phi for All]

I like the government in the way of a lot of things, and blindly assuming the U.S. government is always the problem (or solution) is a fallacy.

 

Absolutely. But drawing the emotional attachments has already been done skillfully by professionals. If I want to sell the People on spending their tax revenue my way, I can point to how strong our defense is, and how we're the good guys and we need to spend a some money to stay that way. If I want to block something done by another politician, I mention taxes or Social Security, because those things are attached to BAD feelings and government ineptness.

 

This argument alone keeps the US from doing the smartest thing it could, which is to forget all the healthcare insurance crap and just make Medicare available to everyone. It's a good system, but the argument "Do you want the government to run this?" has stopped this discussion too many times to count.

 

Yet another reason why our media shouldn't be in the hands of some of the same businesses that lobby our politicians and influence our laws. It's too easy to fool most of the people at just the right times.

[moth]

It seems bazaar to me how effectivly some words have been weaponized, like socialist or community organizer, and others like torturer or war profiteer, are like a fart in the wind.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I haven't read the entire thread yet but I think that Ron Paul has a lot of the vote where I'm located.

 

People like a few aspects about him.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Popcorn Sutton

[overtone]

Personally, I'd be happy with a President from any party that could actually LEAD the country and help put an end to all of this partisan crap that freezes the country up every budget cycle.

It's one-Party Republican partisan crap, and if any of its Party Congresscritters get any notion of allowing themselves to be led by a President with any other agenda than cutting taxes and removing regulations on the the Koch crowd's operations they will be deprived of media favoritism and financial support - which will be instead granted to their opponent in the Party primary.

 

 

 

And while I haven't seen as blatant an example of this coming from the Dems, I'm sure it factors into their voting habits as well.

You can't think of any comparable examples of snotheaded destructive behavior from the Dems because there haven't been any. This isn't Reps vs Dems, it's the rich vs everyone else, with the Reps as a Party and some Dems as individuals for tools, and racial bigotry conjoined with fundie religion for leverage point.

 

 

 

I mean the Republican party has literally turned into the evil party. . . . and it seems they have replaced their original libertarian philosophies, which at least hold some intellectual honesty with downright bull.

The Republican Party hasn't changed much since Nixon took the white male bigot and fundie vote away from the Dems - that was 1968, and the electoral base as well as the financial core of the Republican Party has remained just what Nixon made it ever since.

 

The Party hasn't been acting or governing according to anything like a "libertarian philosophy" since the Civil War, if ever - they've been rightwing authoritarians with an executive cadre of billionaire pirates and cynics and whackjobs manipulating a populist base formed around ethnic and racial hostility, militarized nationalist myth, atavastic misogyny, and mystical religious fervor, for fifty years now at least (we have to use circumlocutions like that instead of the standard term for that combination, because almost no one in the US has any meaningful political vocabulary left).

 

And it's worked like a charm - of course there have been the ups and downs,

 

Nixon mass bombing Cambodian and Laotian civilians with chemical weapons and running incompetent thug cadres out of the White House while his Vice President took envelopes of bribe money across the official VP desk; Reagan deregulating the mortgage industry on the taxpayer's dime and exploding the US public debt while his Vice President kept in touch with the death squads he had overseen when he ran the CIA; W spectacularly finishing the economic disaster launched by Reagan while also following in his footsteps by becoming the second President to have a book of legitimate and accurate quotes from him shelved in the comedy section of bookstores everywhere (and a VP with a large private safe in his formal office);

 

and on the distaff side the Helen Chenowiths gave way to the Phyllis Schlafflys, who scooched over for the Sara Palins and Michelle Bachmanns,

 

and the Robert Borks gave way to the Clarence Thomases who were succeeded by the Harriet Meiers's,

 

while the agenda train - tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of corporations - rolled along, throwing New Deal bums off at every opportunity

 

because there's nothing new about this Republican Party. They've been sugaring the mower gas and breaking glass in the sandbox and thieving from the rainy day money - and setting fires in the kitchen and torturing the pets and smearing shit on the yard flag - for fifty years. That's how they keep the base happy - all three of those flagrant crooks and governance disasters won comfortable reelection.

 

A country that can be conned and defrauded into re-electing Nixon, Reagan, and W, can be manipulated into electing anyone - anyone at all. It's just a matter of whether the heavyweights can rig it properly.

Edited April 29, 2014 by overtone

[hypervalent_iodine]

I haven't read the entire thread yet but I think that Ron Paul has a lot of the vote where I'm located.

 

People like a few aspects about him.

 

 

Do you mean his son, Rand Paul? Ron Paul has stated that he won't be running in any more primaries. I think most of his (Rand's) support would come from the people who supported his father, which was not nearly enough to get Ron through the 2012 primaries and will most likely not be enough for Rand in 2016.

 

As well, some of his opinions of late aren't conservative enough for most Republicans / Tea Partiers (e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/rand-paul-abortion_n_5213294.html), so he may even lose some votes from the far right / libertarian base. Possibly he'll run in the primaries, but I seriously doubt he'd get much further. Especially with other candidates like Cruz or Rubio in the mix.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I think that Ron left enough of a legacy. It would probably be a good idea to have a follow up.

[hypervalent_iodine]

I think that Ron left enough of a legacy. It would probably be a good idea to have a follow up.

 

 

And I'm sure his son will follow up, I just think he'll end up in the same boat as his father. Some of his recent comments, which have been more centrist, make me think he may be better than the other hopefuls. Or at least less terrible, but all of the possibilities for the 2016 Republican primaries look terrible to me. He confuses me, though. His comments in the past and even his own website would indicate that his opinions are on the very conservative end of things rather than the more moderate end that he's currently speaking at (his website advocates a complete ban on abortion regardless of the circumstances for instance, which is even harsher than Cruz). My guess is that he's laying some ground work to capture the centre in 2016, but that will be of little help if he loses the far-right vote in the primaries.

 

As to the OP: I really like Warren and she would be a great candidate, but I don't think her time is now. She hasn't even seen out her first term in the senate yet and running in 2016 may work more against her than for her. A lot could happen between now and 2016, but as it stands, Clinton is the likely candidate for the Dem ticket. Even ignoring that, I think Warren is better off waiting and continuing to make more of a national profile for herself and establish her base before she attempts to run for presidency. That being said, she's 64 now and if she ran in 2020 or 2024, she'd be 71 or 75, which in either event would make her older than the oldest serving president by about 2 or 6 years. That may or may not be a bad thing; it would obviously depend on where she's at by then.

 

.

[moth]

The Republican Party hasn't changed much since Nixon took the white male bigot and fundie vote away from the Dems - that was 1968, and the electoral base as well as the financial core of the Republican Party has remained just what Nixon made it ever since.

 

How do they do it? Is it really as easy as changing your name from silent majority to moral majority to compassionate conservative to neo-conservative to tea party while keeping so much of the Nixon white house as ringleaders.

 

My experiences talking to right wing friends on facebook have become so puzzling I quit trying to keep in touch with them completely.

When shown evidence of their delusions, they don't dispute it, they just don't care.

 

[Popcorn Sutton]

I doubt that Rand will get elected if he takes a stance on the main issues such as abortion. He really shouldn't be saying that abortion will be illegal if he gets elected. I know a few people who got abortions and, yes, they all regret it but, at the same time, women are scared of giving birth. Long story short, don't do that Rand, the worst part is that it's completely irrelevant to economic growth. What we need is someone who will make changes quickly and not tarry on irrelevant issues. We need a president who will keep up the pace and take a few steps further, someone who can predict what needs to happen before it becomes significant.

 

There needs to be a better division of labor.

[iNow]

I don't particularly believe that the United States voting populous is really that far right.

The VOTING populace is pretty right, at least in the primaries. The overall populace? Maybe not so much, but they don't seem animated or passionate enough to vote often.

 

Now measuring this is hard next to impossible, considering a lot of it is terminology.

But we can look at policies, and positions, and explanations of ideologies during campaigns, etc. We can then also compare all of that against other nations of similar wealth and makeup and look at what THEIR conservative parties are doing. When you do this, I think you'll find that even our "lefties" are quite "right" by international standards.

[jduff]

Democrats are milling behind Hilary. It will be Rand Paul vs Hillary Clinton. Hillary will most likely lose. Considering Rand has support from areas that are traditionally heavy democrat. This includes the heavily liberal area of silicon valley. To get that backing alone is a accomplishment of greatness for any republican. Besides the dislike of democrats currently regardless of mainstream media. Hillary will have a very difficult time. Mostly due to this current administration. If it were a republican president in office right now. The gallows and hangman would be a daily event.

[iNow]

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people are so willing to speak with such certainty about the future and how those same people so often conflate personal opinion with fact.

[Popcorn Sutton]

You guys want my opinion? I think elections are bullshit. We need a revision

 

It's probably not going to happen though. I just think that voting was the latest and greatest before the age of info. We could really change things for the best if we just used data.

Whoever agrees with that will get about 15 votes from me and my friends.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Popcorn Sutton

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Please stick to the topic - which is the 2016 Presidential Race; let's not branch into the validity of elections.

[Delta1212]

Democrats are milling behind Hilary. It will be Rand Paul vs Hillary Clinton. Hillary will most likely lose. Considering Rand has support from areas that are traditionally heavy democrat. This includes the heavily liberal area of silicon valley. To get that backing alone is a accomplishment of greatness for any republican. Besides the dislike of democrats currently regardless of mainstream media. Hillary will have a very difficult time. Mostly due to this current administration. If it were a republican president in office right now. The gallows and hangman would be a daily event.

I don't pretend to know who is going to win this far ahead of the election, but I do know that Rand Paul won't be our next President.

[john5746]

If Jeb wins the primary, he will be difficult to beat. Only Hillary would have a chance and it will be tough. He'll get more of the Latino vote than Romney. She might look old and tired in the debates compared to him and will need to defend Obama's administration, since she was a part of it.

 

I think Jeb has a very good chance of winning the primary, especially with Christie damaged. Rand is more political than his dad, but he has foot in the mouth disease and still speaks to a rabid minority.

[imatfaal]

In my ignorance of US politics I am hoping that there exists a Jeb who isn't spawn of GHWB that I haven't yet heard of.

 

Aren't the primaries where the damage to these candidates really gets done? $10,000 dollar bets? Not remembering part three of your own three point plan? Or finding your clear blue water has been taken by a more skilled and speedier political operator? It seems that primaries have become a least-worst selection device seeking boring but safe mediocrity - but the ability to survive in a race against your supposed political allies seems to bear increasingly little connection to the ability to win in a race against a political foe

[john5746]

In my ignorance of US politics I am hoping that there exists a Jeb who isn't spawn of GHWB that I haven't yet heard of.

Yeah, should have included last names. Jeb Bush, actual name is John Ellis Bush.

 

Aren't the primaries where the damage to these candidates really gets done? $10,000 dollar bets? Not remembering part three of your own three point plan? Or finding your clear blue water has been taken by a more skilled and speedier political operator? It seems that primaries have become a least-worst selection device seeking boring but safe mediocrity - but the ability to survive in a race against your supposed political allies seems to bear increasingly little connection to the ability to win in a race against a political foe

Yes, the republican primaries at least have increasingly become a balancing act between appeasing the ideologues who vote and the big money supporters who want a horse they think can win. Bush will have the big money support and will just have to take the right lumps on certain issues, like immigration in order to squeeze through the primary and win the general.

[Phi for All]

Yeah, should have included last names. Jeb Bush, actual name is John Ellis Bush.

 

Don't use his first name again, please. EVER. The brand is "Bush", and I think it's important to stay true to that.

[imatfaal]

 

Don't use his first name again, please. EVER. The brand is "Bush", and I think it's important to stay true to that.

 

Unfo it is a brand that has shown its effectiveness at getting elected. I am not sure I like the dynastification of US politics; the most likely bet for candidates at present is a wife and a son/brother

[Phi for All]

 

Unfo it is a brand that has shown its effectiveness at getting elected. I am not sure I like the dynastification of US politics; the most likely bet for candidates at present is a wife and a son/brother

 

I'm guilty of projecting my horror at the idea of another Bush in the White House. Personally, I think his connection to his brother should be enough to make any intelligent voter blanch, but basing an argument on incredulity and rational thought is what gets the left of center every time.

 

Bush III will never get elected, people will remember how his brother screwed up the whole world under his watch, right? Right?!

 

Right.

[Endy0816]

He was actually decent as govenor. Fairly moderate views. That is really what the Republicans need if they're going to win anytime soon.

 

Moderate views. Make no mention of crazy religion based policies. Appear down to earth but have or come from a record of financial success. Calming standard white guy image the country is accustomed to.

 

I'm of the opinion they are likely to win this one. Not sure good/bad. Generally overall situation remains the same so not sure how much it matters in the grand scheme of things.

[jduff]

Here is the reason Rand Paul will most likely win the presidency if he runs. Or in the least, one of many reasons! http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/opinion/show-us-the-drone-memos.html?_r=0

and why Hilary will be a token candidate.

[Delta1212]

Here is the reason Rand Paul will most likely win the presidency if he runs. Or in the least, one of many reasons! http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/opinion/show-us-the-drone-memos.html?_r=0

and why Hilary will be a token candidate.

How in the world do you get from the one to the other?

 

Does anyone actually believe that if Rand Paul was the one in the White House right now he wouldn't be taking the exact opposite stance on this?