2016 US Presidential Race - Landslide or Laughing Stock?

[iNow]

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

Precisely what do you believe this actually achieves?

Edited June 6, 2014 by iNow

[Ten oz]

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.

Our system has a lot of problems. Most of our representation is poor. That can be changed though. One of our biggest problems in politics is that people only pay attention to the whitehouse. Many of the same people who lament about D.C. have no idea who their congressman is, Governor is, Mayor is, and so on. There is a whole lot of govt impacting our lives between my kitchen table and the President of the United States. All of these govt officials that we aren't paying attention to like District Judges, state election officers, state Treasury, and etc greatly influence or system. So rather than staying home and not voting I think people need to do the opposite. People need to get more involved especially in local races. Local races is where it is more likely third party candidates can win. Small local races are not as manipulated by outside money.

[Delta1212]

 

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

 

Yes, good idea. Please do this.

[Ten oz]

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".

this is already happening every midterm election season. Midterms only draw anywhere from 35-38% of elgible voters. Doesn't stop members of Congress from doing what they want.

 

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.

Apathy is exactly why our system doesn't work in my opinion. Sure everyone knows who the President is but the Executive Branch is only a third of the Federal Govt. A lot of people have no idea who represents them in the House or Senate. No idea who sits on the Courts. Many people are also ignorant of what impacts their local govt has on their lives. People often don't pay attention to city, county, and state races. My guess in that more people know who the Mayor of New York City is than who the Mayor of their own cities are.

Rather than refusing to vote because we don't like the candidates people should start actually becoming educated about candidates other than the President. Third party voting for example has proven success in local govt races.

[MigL]

Whatever happened to 'America, land of opportunity, where even a poor man can aspire to be president' ?

 

At least in Canada we have some ( relatively ) poor politicians. We also have rich politicians like Rob Ford, who has no class at all, yet is still a better choice than his opposition in the next election.

 

I also find it amusing that, no matter whether Republican or Democrat, once they attain Office, most presidents react to crisis the same way. Do you really think Obama has done things much differently than George W. would have ? Sure he makes much better speeches, or at least his pronunciation is better, but did he close Guantanamo ? Did his bailout of the banks not effectively give a trillion dollar bailout to the rich ? All the homeowners who lost their homes got zilch. Did he not effectively say "mission accomplished' in Iraq, pull out and where are they now ? Is he not just as ineffective in his second term as G.W. was ?

 

And Acme is absolutely right, I vote just I can complain afterwards.

Edited August 2, 2014 by MigL

[Delta1212]

I'm not sure it's fair to compare the guy who sent us into an unwinnable hell hole for no particularly good reason with the guy who pulled us out because it was an unwinnable hell hole. Sure, neither "won" but the circumstances aren't exactly equivalent.

 

And if GWB and Obama are equally ineffective in their second term, that also doesn't reflect well on GWB since he managed it without having to deal with literally the least effective and most obstructionist Congress we've had in at least a century.

 

W is also responsible for tipping the ideology of the Supreme Court enough to allow for some of the truly atrocious rulings lately that have seriously fucked up US politics even moreso than it already was. (See: Citizens United).

 

Obama's not the best President we've ever had, not is he a champion of liberalism, but any comparisons to Bush are born of a very short memory.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Delta1212

[Ten oz]

Whatever happened to 'America, land of opportunity, where even a poor man can aspire to be president' ?

 

At least in Canada we have some ( relatively ) poor politicians. We also have rich politicians like Rob Ford, who has no class at all, yet is still a better choice than his opposition in the next election.

 

I also find it amusing that, no matter whether Republican or Democrat, once they attain Office, most presidents react to crisis the same way. Do you really think Obama has done things much differently than George W. would have ? Sure he makes much better speeches, or at least his pronunciation is better, but did he close Guantanamo ? Did his bailout of the banks not effectively give a trillion dollar bailout to the rich ? All the homeowners who lost their homes got zilch. Did he not effectively say "mission accomplished' in Iraq, pull out and where are they now ? Is he not just as ineffective in his second term as G.W. was ?

 

And Acme is absolutely right, I vote just I can complain afterwards.

I use to believe there was no difference then Bush 43 became president over Al Gore. That sobered me up fast. While neither party represents my positions there are differences between the two. The differeces aren't stark as I wish but they do exist.

 

You asked what Obama has done differently; do you honestly believe McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan wouldn't have us in another war by now? Look at the events in Egyt, Syria, Ukraine, and Israel. You honesty think Bush/McCain/Romney wouldn't have the U.S. more directly involved? Bush 43 wanted to move on Syria in 05' but Iraq was going too poorly. If Obama has done nothing else at least he ended the two wars and not created any others.

 

Look at the courts and ridiculous rulings like corporation personhood. That came directly from the Federalist Society. Do you think Al Gore would have put federalist Judge on the supreme court like Bush 43 did? Can you imagine what our courts would look like today is McCain/Palin were nominating judges rather than Obama/Biden?

 

As for Gitmo, that is on Congress. Obama has tried but Congress refuses to allow prisoners to have trials in U.S. courts. Closing Gitmo is something Obama can legally do via executive action but transferring the prisoners is not. So he can just release every prisoner and get impeach by Congress or do what he has been doing which is not adding any new prisoners. He also stopped torturing them.

 

Another important thing to consider is that the Executive branch is only a third of the federal govt. Republicans control the other two branches, Congress and the Courts. That balance of power prevents any lone President from diverging too far from the status qou.

[iNow]

Obama got healthcare to 35 million people who didn't previously have it.

 

Obama got significant bank regulations in place to protect against too big to fail via Dodd-Frank.

 

Obama prevented the economic crisis from becoming a second depression and took us from losing 750,000 jobs per month to adding more than 200,000 per month and moved the national unemployment rate from roughly 10% to roughly 6% and has helped the stock market reach all time record highs.

 

Obama has extracted our troops and got us out of the single longest lasting war in US history.

 

Obama has decreased the budget deficit, taken action on climate change, put policies in place to help the middle class and struggling families, and he does done all of this in the face of a congressional majority that blocks anything and everything he supports, and who cuts funding for critical programs and government jobs (like teachers and firefighters and librarians) at every turn.

 

While some people here may not think Obama is a very good president, I personally suspect that history will arrive at a vastly different conclusion given the measurable positive impact his term has had on the lives of millions despite dreadful circumstances and obstacles.

Edited August 2, 2014 by iNow

[MigL]

It has little to do with their accomplishments or failiures.

It has to do with the reality that the Office brings a whole different perspective on things. While campaining, or in opposition, it is very easy to make bold claims about change. I'm sure even G.W. had a totally different vision of what his presidency would accomplish. It ended with him being hated by a majority of people ( Reps as well as Dems ) in the US. It is only now that people's opinion is starting to soften.

Obama may have done much better than G.W. although I don't think he faced the same challenges, such as the first attack by a foreign aggressor on US soil since the war of 1812, so we'll never know how he would have reacted. But you certainly can't say he has lived up to expectations and campaign promises. Not for lack of trying, mind you, but even he looks disappointed in what he has been able to accomplish.

 

I don't think of either man as evil or unAmerican. They both did the best they could when faced with differing but equally difficult circumstances. These circumstances I might add, were certainly not what they envisaged during their campains or mentioned in their speeches.

[Ten oz]

It has little to do with their accomplishments or failiures.

It has to do with the reality that the Office brings a whole different perspective on things. While campaining, or in opposition, it is very easy to make bold claims about change. I'm sure even G.W. had a totally different vision of what his presidency would accomplish. It ended with him being hated by a majority of people ( Reps as well as Dems ) in the US. It is only now that people's opinion is starting to soften.

 

Bush 43 lost the popular vote in 00'. It took the supreme court to give him the electoral count. In 04' he won by another slim margin. Electoral college was 286 Bush to 251 Kerry. By contrast Obama won both of his elections walking away. So Bush was never a particularly poplar president to begin with.

 

 

Obama may have done much better than G.W. although I don't think he faced the same challenges, such as the first attack by a foreign aggressor on US soil since the war of 1812, so we'll never know how he would have reacted. But you certainly can't say he has lived up to expectations and campaign promises. Not for lack of trying, mind you, but even he looks disappointed in what he has been able to accomplish.

 

"first attack by a foreign aggressor on US soil since the war of 1812", what do you consider the first WTC bombing in 1993?

 

 

 

I don't think of either man as evil or unAmerican. They both did the best they could when faced with differing but equally difficult circumstances. These circumstances I might add, were certainly not what they envisaged during their campains or mentioned in their speeches.

Differing but equally difficult circumstances? Wow, Bush came into office with a Federal Budget surplus, low unemployment, strong economy, no wars overseas, and a federalist society controlled court. Obama came into office with a over a trillion dollar annual deficit, a collapsing finiancial system, losing 700,000 jobs per month, 2 unpopular overseas wars, a court that was and is opposed to him. You consider those circumstance different but equal?

[iNow]

I'm sure even G.W. had a totally different vision of what his presidency would accomplish. It ended with him being hated by a majority of people

I wouldn't call it hatred, and I would also note the love Bush garnered in Africa for his policies there. He did amazing work for AIDS relief. Even here in the US his position on immigration was rather mature and forward looking.

 

"first attack by a foreign aggressor on US soil since the war of 1812", what do you consider the first WTC bombing in 1993?

Or Pearl Harbor, too. Edited August 2, 2014 by iNow

[Ten oz]

Or Pearl Harbor, too.

Absolutely! I mentioned the 1993 bombin because it was literally to same place by the same terrorist organization. President Clinton did not respond by invading Afghanistan and then Iraq.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Ten oz

[MigL]

Come on Ten oz, i think iNow gets the point I was trying to make, you don't seem to.

This is not about who is the better president. Its about the reality of office as opposed to the aspirations ( fantasy ) of the campain.

Every politician ( and voter ) faces this problem, not just presidents.

 

Would have been more accurate to say the continental US, I suppose. And I guess i consider an attack by three planes as significant as opposed to a bomb which fails to acheive its objective.

[Ten oz]

Come on Ten oz, i think iNow gets the point I was trying to make, you don't seem to.

This is not about who is the better president. Its about the reality of office as opposed to the aspirations ( fantasy ) of the campain.

Every politician ( and voter ) faces this problem, not just presidents.

 

Of course all politicians get humbled by what they are actually able to acheive. That fact should not allow cover for those who make poor decisions. Policy wise Obama primarily ran on raising Taxes, The affordable care act, ending the wars, closing Gitmo, the Dream Act, jobs growth, and working with our allies on foriegn policy rather than going it alone. I believe Obama has attempted all of it. Obama was forced in to compromises on Taxes and healthcare, he was beaten by Congress on the Dream Act and Gitmo, and has kept his word on international affairs. Jobs have been recovering as well.

 

Would have been more accurate to say the continental US, I suppose. And I guess i consider an attack by three planes as significant as opposed to a bomb which fails to acheive its objective.

From an engineering stand point the towers were designed to withstand both garage explosions and plane strikes. On paper both the 93' and 01' attacks had equal odds of success. Both were planned and executed in the same manner by the same organization. How many lives are lost is such attacks are often a matter of chance. In terms of how the govt should respond the two attacks were equal in my opinion.

[iNow]

Informal poll / pulse check...

 

What do you think would happen if Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders ran on a single ticket in 2016? Landslide or laughing stock?

 

Also, what if they ran against a Rand Paul / Ted Cruz ticket?

Thoughts?

It's been nearly a year since I asked this. Any thoughts now?

[imatfaal]

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.

 

I think John still seems correct

[Ten oz]

I think Jeb could win the primary but I doubt he attracts enough Latino voters to win. While he personally is much better on issues that most likely matter to Latino voters Republicans have spent the last 10yrs branding themselves the opposite. Starting when they blocked Bush/McCain's guest worker push in 04'-05' and straight thru to today where they just tried to block DHS funding. Jeb can not over come where his party is on the issues.

[overtone]

The fact that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are in any way comparable, in their access to Partisan role and influence, with the likes of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, tells a sane voter everything they need to know about the Parties involved in such a comparison.

 

No one can justify a national level Republican vote in the next election cycle, regardless of the candidates. Can't be done.

 

But it will be faked, on a massive scale, using billions of unearned dollars that used to be taxed away and put toward the public interest.

 

Jeb Bush, by the way, has serious corruption problems dating back to his family's tenure in power, and he has a milder form of the same aphasia troubles his father and brother had - it comes from not being completely convinced of your own lies in advance, I think. It's hard to lie when you yourself do not believe what you are saying.

 

There is a large faction of US voter who regards successful corruption as a sign of competence - the folks who think the fascists make the trains run on time, the mob makes Chicago work, and so forth - and Jeb can tap them for votes; but he's dirty; and not jsut for the electoral manipulations that handed the Presidency to its least competent occupant ever. The question will be how much more control over the media Jeb's backers have acquired, since 9/11.

 

 

 

. Jeb can not over come where his party is on the issues.

Exit polls in 2004 showed that on several key issues most W voters thought W supported the positions actually taken by Kerry and his Party, and Kerry supported the positions taken by W and his Party.

 

The media powers that will back Jeb can do some amazing things with public opinion. Here's a prediction: Jeb will speak against "big government" action that benefits the rich only, using "Obama's bank bailout" (or possibly just allusions to "the bank bailout" as accomplished by the people Jeb is running against ) that left the nation's middle class homeowners on the hook, as an example.

Edited March 4, 2015 by overtone

[Endy0816]

We're kind of due. Personally I'm not really thrilled by most of their stances on the issues. At least one of them stands a good chance of winning provided there aren't any major fumbles. I know the GOP has been working to limit the primary infighting, so we'll have to see how that strategy plays out.

[Ten oz]

We're kind of due.

Who is due?

 

Personally I'm not really thrilled by most of their stances on the issues. At least one of them stands a good chance of winning provided there aren't any major fumbles.

In your opinion what gives any of them a "good chance". Republicans have only one the popular vote once in the last 6 national elections.

 

I know the GOP has been working to limit the primary infighting, so we'll have to see how that strategy plays out.

We are still 10 months away from the first primary race and already Rand Paul has knocked several possible opponents, a walk out was performed during CPAC against Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie has taken swipes at Scott Walker. No such battling thus far on the Democrat side.

[Endy0816]

Country. Control generally cycles after a set number of years.

 

Candidate really doesn't need any qualities besides not being a total wingnut(YOMV) and Republican.

 

This:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/24/gop-adopts-changes-to-2016-presidential-primary-process/

 

gives a good overview on the primary changes. Granted there is only so much they can do.

[overtone]

 

 

Candidate really doesn't need any qualities besides not being a total wingnut(YOMV) and Republican.

If they are Republican, how are they going to avoid being a total wingnut? The moderates were purged years ago.

 

And if they are, as every credible candidate so far has been, a far-right whackjob and heir to the Republican Party agenda, how are they going to conceal that from the voters this time?

 

It's an honest question - I fully expect the Republican candidate to be presented by the major media as reasonably sane and competent and without crippling allegiances to the darksiders. I'm just not sure how that is going to be accomplished.

[Endy0816]

The two I know from local elections, Rubio and Jeb weren't too out there, though personally I still disagree with a number of their positions.

 

Since about the 80's there has been a general trend for presidents to be reelected to a second term.

 

http://www.jjmccullough.com/prezidents.htm

 

Trend would probably go back further if external factors hadn't impacted events(deaths, assassination, scandal). At the 4 year midpoint though, better candidates have a rational reason to hold off on running. Obviously this could(and probably does) result in a self-fulfilling prophesy... At any rate we should see better Republican candidates during the 2016 election. The race is really going to depend on how the Democrats play things.

[overtone]

The two I know from local elections, Rubio and Jeb weren't too out there,

They are, by their financial and political alliances and allegiances, whackjob supplysiders with an obsession over Cuba and no repudiation of the evils of the Iraq War or the Security State. They are both amenable to "privatizing" Social Security and Medicare, both in favor of reducing taxes on the wealthy, and neither one has a workable notion of how to deal with the 12 million illegal residents of the US. They both deny various standard scientific theories and findings - about CO2 accumulation, Darwinian evolution, human sexual behavior and reproduction, drug use and influences, etc.

 

In addition, Jeb has a fair amount of corruption and influence peddling in his background, while Rubio has ties to the Cuban mob and related US criminal operations. Just for starters: Florida has been a center of US criminal money laundering for decades now - the major State politicians who have not publicly opposed this and paid a price are inevitably implicated in this and everything related to it.

 

The point being, these guys may have personal ambitions and opportunity here, but neither one of them brings anything to the table the country needs. They are both just continuations of the Reagan era, and that's been a disaster since it started. We suffered through southern California, and thenTexas, and now we are looking at the trifecta of this horrorshow, Florida? Please - no.

 

 

 

 

At any rate we should see better Republican candidates during the 2016 election

There aren't any. The entire Party has gutted itself of competence, even, let alone vision and principle and all that good stuff. You might get somebody electable, but their odds of making a good President are near zero.

 

If you had the country's welfare at heart, you'd take the next election off and reboot your Party - the Party of Ted Cruz and John Boehner cannot govern, or fill the Presidency to any good effect.

Edited March 10, 2015 by overtone

[Endy0816]

I'm actually independent. Have to take a less biased view for forecasting purposes though. If you see something moving statically normally, it is likely to keep on doing so. I'd like events to play out differently but just don't see it happening