2016 US Presidential Race - Landslide or Laughing Stock?

[john5746]

Drones and killing treasonous Americans are low on the priority right now. My biggest concern with drones is one of them falling on me or dropping a parcel on me or taking a plane down. That and any noise they make if too many start buzzing about.

[iNow]

Drones will be a much bigger issue once Amazon starts using them to deliver goods (or Dominos to deliver pizza, for example) than they are for us now with military and agricultural usage, but I digress...

 

 

I disagree that Rand Paul would be a lock if he ran. To make such a conclusion shows a significant disconnect with the reality on the ground. He has a very passionate following, but that following is still only a small fraction of the overall populace. It's mostly just a vocal minority, IMO, and even those who respect him and agree with him on some topics tend to disagree with him profoundly on several other key topics. If we could take bits and pieces of Rand Paul in a sort of "a la carte" fashion, then I suspect he'd have a better chance, but the fact that it's all or nothing and we must take him as a whole seems to turn more people away than it draws in.

 

For the GOP ticket, I have a feeling that a Jeb Bush / Marco Rubio ticket would be probably the strongest and hardest for the Democrats to beat given current sentiment. Their biggest challenge would be getting through the primaries, though, mostly due to their moderately reasonable views on immigration.

Edited May 13, 2014 by iNow

[overtone]

For the GOP ticket, I have a feeling that a Jeb Bush / Marco Rubio ticket would be probably the strongest and hardest for the Democrats to beat given current sentiment. Their biggest challenge would be getting through the primaries, though, mostly due to their moderately reasonable views on immigration.

In that case all they have to do is reverse their official stance on immigration, and wait three weeks for the media to establish official amnesia.

 

They could, say, dismiss queries by asserting that their former views were proper for their State (Florida) but as President they represented the views other States as well - so that in the ones with lots of "ethnic minorities" they could pander, and in the ones with regular normal people they could talk tough. That worked for Romney on medical care, if you recall, with no more in the way of credibility or integrity.

 

Another problem there - that Jeb and Mario are both Florida residents, and the Constitution explicitly forbids the Pres and VP from sharing State residency, is also easily navigated - just have one of them do what Houston, Texas citizen Richard Cheney did in 2000: one of them, probably Jeb, can claim to live in Wyoming or some such cooperative place (he has Texas connections, also).

 

A third and more serious problem is that both those guys are Catholic. The Republican voting base is OK with a certain amount of Catholic influence, in moderation, on specific issues like consequences for loose behavior of women, but there's a limit. And Jeb is a convert, which means he might be serious about that Pope stuff (or pussywhipped by a Catholic wife, which plays poorly in that crowd also).

Edited May 20, 2014 by overtone

[iNow]

Good points. Thank you for sharing them.

 

Given some of the issues you highlighted, I wonder if perhaps a Jeb Bush / Rand Paul ticket would maximize GOP chances.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I do not think that Jeb Bush will be a good candidate to choose for the northeast. He's going to automatically lose our interest up here, there is one saving grace for him though, and that is to mention big data.

[iNow]

Do you believe that any other GOP potential would fare better in the Northeast, though?

[Popcorn Sutton]

Oh boy, I don't think calling yourself a republican is well accepted amongst about 2% of the people. The rest of the 12% that do vote, they're mostly mad democrats.

 

 

Out of that 12%, 2% are probably libertarian and know it while the rest are libertarian without knowing it or easily persuaded to be that way. No one is revolutionary except maybe .001%, but I think that people want stuff that will never concern the federal government.

[iNow]

So, you completely evaded my actual question and then proceeded to submit a post filled with made up numbers and inaccurate/invalidated statistics you seem to have pulled straight from your colon. Well, uhh... okay. Thanks, I guess? Maybe we can bring ourselves back on topic now?

Speaking of the thread topic... Elizabeth Warren stated multiple times on Stephen Colbert last night that she's not running for president. Now, of course she could have been playing semantic games and suggesting implicitly, "As of this moment while we're here taping this show, I'm not currently running for president," but only time will tell...

http://www.businessinsider.com/stephen-colbert-takes-on-wall-streets-least-favorite-commie-senator-2014-5

Colbert also addressed speculation Warren might run for president in 2016 by playing a series of clips in which she denied she is planning a White House bid. He followed this up by asking her the question again.

"No, I'm not running for president," Warren said.

Watch Colbert's skits and interview featuring Warren below.

[imatfaal]

What is the sentiment regarding GWBush's record and the knock-on effect on brother JEBush?

 

Tony Blair had the best results in General Election for many years - but since his time in office (and a huge number of people and organisations forgetting they supported the two wars/interventions at the time) his ratings have plummeted and a connexion with him would be strongly negative for a candidate in the eyes of the electorate. Would the same sort of effect apply to JEB just through his familial links to GWB?

[Popcorn Sutton]

My numbers were a personal perspective and I did think about them, it wasn't just a fairy tale. I'm saying that out of the people that I associate or have associated with recently feel this way. It's a younger generation, which doesn't mean that they will all vote, but out of the ones who care to talk about politics with me, they consider themselves closest to democrats rather than republicans (probably because of how much negativity came about while Bush Jr. was in office). People truly feel like the republicans have destroyed our economy, and most of the people (actually, all of them) are working low paying jobs with no foreseeable future with independence (myself included). On a wider scale, however, there is a hysteria amongst intellectuals about big data. We know that the NSA was (and probably still is) collecting all this data, but the question is, at this point, if I can phrase it properly, "what are they going to do with all of this data?" People are left wondering if it was gathered with malicious intentions (such as using a bit of it as evidence to keep them in poverty, prevent them from getting a good job, lock them up, or whatever it may be). I'm saying that if someone addresses this issue, it's going to bring a lot of attention to that candidate, and if that candidate turns out to be republican, then there's going to be some serious consideration as to whether the person interested in that particular field should swing their vote. I, personally, think that if a democrat mentioned this and put a positive spin on it (such as coming up with some practical utility for big data), they will get more votes from Michigan, Ohio, and New York. If a republican did the same thing, then they will get more votes as well (but I don't think that it will be as much as the democrats). Once again though, and I hate to say this because I think that this party truly has some brilliant ideas, the libertarians (even if they do mention big data) are going to get attention for it, but not as much (as per usual). I'd like to see the libertarians have a chance at being in office, but I think that people seriously consider voting for them as throwing out their vote or that it's a waste of time. From what I see on facebook, they don't have much support, but they do have good ideas and they are good at pointing out current issues. They're obviously informed. The numbers that I came up with were based on 100 or so people that I have spoken with since the beginning of the year. Not a big sample, but I think that it may be something worth considering. I'm just trying to give you guys a heads up.

 

As for the big data thing, that is going to draw a lot of attention for whichever candidate brings it up, but it's also going to be a touchy subject.

[Popcorn Sutton]

There's a good chance that JEB just won't have a chance with Michigan, Ohio, and New York because of his familial relation with W. I could be wrong though. Like I said, W was getting the finger pointed at him for making the economy worse.

[Popcorn Sutton]

To your question, iNow, I tried to answer it by saying that there is a possibility that no candidate will fare well for the GOP. If you can provide me with a list of possible candidates for the GOP, I'll review them, but I don't think that I'll be able to sway the vote on my own for my personal contacts (except maybe through facebook).

[iNow]

What is the sentiment regarding GWBush's record and the knock-on effect on brother JEBush?

My read of the situation is that 1) GWB is becoming much less negative in public perception as his time away from office increases and people forget (also, his only public displays involve warm/fuzzy events like library openings or the sharing of his paint by numbers), and 2) Jeb benefits and is seen as MORE capable and competent (especially when viewed relative to his brother). He's seen as a much better executive and that helps him.

 

The effect I see as hurting him is the general sentiment that people are tired of family dynasties ruling the US for so long. Folks want change, and feel that electing yet another member of the Bush family will not offer that, but this challenge applies also to Hillary Clinton so it's a bit of a mix.

[Delta1212]

My read of the situation is that 1) GWB is becoming much less negative in public perception as his time away from office increases and people forget (also, his only public displays involve warm/fuzzy events like library openings or the sharing of his paint by numbers), and 2) Jeb benefits and is seen as MORE capable and competent (especially when viewed relative to his brother). He's seen as a much better executive and that helps him.

 

The effect I see as hurting him is the general sentiment that people are tired of family dynasties ruling the US for so long. Folks want change, and feel that electing yet another member of the Bush family will not offer that, but this challenge applies also to Hillary Clinton so it's a bit of a mix.

Jeb has it marginally worse than Hillary with regard to political dynasties. Hillary's predecessor has become a lot more popular since leaving office, while Jeb would be the third Bush in five presidents, and neither was particularly popular, even if W's unpopularity has waned a bit.

 

Incidentally, I don't think that it's just time, forgetfulness and being relatively innocuous that has improved (or whatever the equivalent for "made less hated" is) W's standing.

 

By comparison with the modern GOP, W comes across as much more likeable. He probably did more actual damage, but you never got the sense that he was trying to harm the country, just that he was a collars all screw up that wasn't above lying to push an agenda or cover his ass.

 

Today's GOP, on the other hand, seems like it would be willing, nay eager, to torch the whole country if they could do it in a way that would let them blame the Democrats. Put up against that W seems like a reasonable Republican.

[Ten oz]

I don't think Jeb has a chance. Bush 43's favorables amongst moderates and independents has not risen since he's left office. Conservatives who are unhappy being out of office may claim to view Bush 43 favorably but I think everyone who follows politics knows Bush 43 was a terrible president. Jeb may be able to pull in Romney level votes but that clearly isn't enough to win.

I am no fan of Hilary but believe she will win easily if she runs. I wish Elizabeth Warren would run but it doesn't seem likely to happen.

[Dekan]

I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of American politics. So the following comments are based only on this general impression:

 

That the choice of US President is now driven primarily by the need to tick off, as fast as possible, all the boxes on the Politically Correct agenda.

A start was made in 2008, by Obama becoming President. He was the first "African-American" President.

Perhaps he hasn't been outstanding in the job, but that doesn't matter - he ticked off one box.

 

Now we turn to the next box - a female President. An opportunity to tick this is coming up in 2016. Therefore I offer a confident prediction:

 

The winner of the US Presidential Election in 2016 will be a woman.

 

I seriously urge anyone with sporting blood in their veins, to get a bet on this right now. It's a dead cert.

 

(Please note, this post is not intended to be in any way offensive to women, or to suggest that a female couldn't make an excellent president. Only that I think things will be arranged so a woman will become president, regardless of merit)

Edited June 1, 2014 by Dekan

[Ten oz]

I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of American politics. So the following comments are based only on this general impression:

 

That the choice of US President is now driven primarily by the need to tick off, as fast as possible, all the boxes on the Politically Correct agenda.

A start was made in 2008, by Obama becoming President. He was the first "African-American" President.

Perhaps he hasn't been outstanding in the job, but that doesn't matter - he ticked off one box.

 

Now we turn to the next box - a female President. An opportunity to tick this is coming up in 2016. Therefore I offer a confident prediction:

 

The winner of the US Presidential Election in 2016 will be a woman.

 

I seriously urge anyone with sporting blood in their veins, to get a bet on this right now. It's a dead cert.

 

(Please note, this post is not intended to be in any way offensive to women, or to suggest that a female couldn't make an excellent president. Only that I think things will be arranged so a woman will become president, regardless of merit)

I have often seen this line of thought repeated. That being African American helped Obama or that being a female will help Hilary Clinton. That idea may feel true but voting demographics are surprisingly stable and Obama's numbers do not differ much from Kerry, Gore, or Bill Clinton's.

 

Percentage of votes for each major voting Demographic:

Obama 08' Kerry 04' Gore 00' Clinton 96'

White - 43 White - 41 White - 42 White - 44

Black - 95 Black - 88 Black - 90 Black - 84

Hispanic - 67 Hispanic - 53 Hispanic - 62 Hispanic - 73

Asian - 62 Asian - 56 Asian - 55 Asian - 44

Female total - 56 Female total - 51 Female total - 54 Female total - 55

Male total - 49 Male total - 44 Male total - 43 Male total - 44

 

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/presidential/presidential_election.html

 

If you factor in things like incumbency, issues of the moment (war, economics, etc), style of candidates, etc the voting totals are surprisingly similar. Amongst the largest voting block, white voters, Obama did a single percent better than Al Gore and a single percent worse than Bill Clinton. So the white guilt voter turning out to make Obama the first African American President is a FARCE. Obama's largest gain in voting demographics over other Democratics was amongst Asians and they only make up 3% of the total voting turn out.

 

Republican's will lose in 2016. Not because Hilary is a women but because the demographics are against them. White males are the only demographic Republicans win and that is why they have only won the popular vote once in the last 6 presidential election. Sarah Palin was on the McCain ticket and had they won she would've been the first female Vice President. That fact did not help McCain with women. Obama still women the women vote by a normal margin Democrats always win by amongst female voters.

[Phi for All]

That the choice of US President is now driven primarily by the need to tick off, as fast as possible, all the boxes on the Politically Correct agenda.

 

A truly specious conservative argument, when you really look at it. It seems driven by a shallow, propagandized perception of the intelligence of everyone else.

[Dekan]

If people were intelligent, they wouldn't vote for politicians. Why people keep voting for the beggars amazes me. I stopped voting 20 years ago, when I realised what was going on.

 

Thankfully, more and more people are also realising this, and have stopped voting.

 

The percentage of people who vote in elections is steadily falling, This is a good sign. Doesn't it show that we aren't all fooled by politicians?

[iNow]

Doesn't it show that we aren't all fooled by politicians?

No.

[Popcorn Sutton]

If anything it shows that the non-voters don't care about politics and what might happen. I'm assuming that a lot of them feel like their vote doesn't even matter. Myself included

[Dekan]

Well, the people who vote for them are getting fewer, which shows a welcome increase in the general level of intelligence of the population.

 

What intelligent person could possibly vote for a politician? I mean, haven't we learned that they're all scoundrels? Perhaps this hasn't yet penetrated some people's skulls.

[iNow]

Well, the people who vote for them are getting fewer, which shows a welcome increase in the general level of intelligence of the population.

This does not follow.

 

What intelligent person could possibly vote for a politician?

Are you asking that I name or actually list a few, or are you trying to argue some nebulous point that somehow the most "intelligent" people among us can reasonably expect to change a system by ignoring and opting out of it? That doesn't seem very intelligent to me (much more like an ostrich burying its head in the sand), but I suppose YMMV.

[Dekan]

This does not follow.

 

Are you asking that I name or actually list a few, or are you trying to argue some nebulous point that somehow the most "intelligent" people among us can reasonably expect to change a system by ignoring and opting out of it? That doesn't seem very intelligent to me (much more like an ostrich burying its head in the sand), but I suppose YMMV.

I don't think it's intelligent to keep complaining about politicians (as everyone seems to do) - yet keep going to the polls and voting for them.

 

What we ought to do is this - whenever there's an election - stay away from the polls, and refuse to vote.

That would at least deprive the politicians of any claim that they have "a mandate from the people".

 

An increasing number of people are reacting in this way - ie, staying away from the polls. Not out of "apathy", but out of a sense that the present political system is not what they want.

[Acme]

If you don't vote, don't complain.

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. ~Plato

Edited June 5, 2014 by Acme