2016 US Presidential Race - Landslide or Laughing Stock?

[MigL]

So Hillary has thrown her hat in the ring for the head honcho position in 2016.

No big surprise there.

But this second time around, she's not going to be Margaret Thatcher Lite.

She's made tackling wealth inequality her platform, and is running as a woman, not trying to prove she's got bigger b*lls than her opponents.

 

I like it. What do you guys think ?

[iNow]

I think it's unfortunate that we're probably going to spend the next 574 days until the November 2016 election talking about BS non-issues like Bengazi and Whitewater and other horse race nonsense that the media eats up like catnip instead of talking about climate change and healthcare and police brutality and growth of the middle class and international relations as China and India continue to grow and the Middle East continues to crumble, etc.

[DrP]

I hope whoever gets in will continue the good work (See post #83).

 

Here we have free health care for who ever needs it regardless of whether they have any money or not. It works... really well. You guys need to embrace it. I've seen the propaganda videos that scaremonger the rich into not wanting to pay a tiny, tiny bit more tax so that everyone in the country is safe and healthy and cared for. They are mislead/misleading.

 

Anyway - good luck America. I hope it all goes well - here's to positive progression! x

[StringJunky]

I hope whoever gets in will continue the good work (See post #83).

 

Here we have free health care for who ever needs it regardless of whether they have any money or not. It works... really well.

A national health service should be a pillar of any properly run society. Most people will need it at some point in their life and it will likely be very expensive when they do if they had to do it privately. I think it's good for the collective psyche to have such an institution where people don't have to worry about costs as well as any potentially life changing/ending medical problem.

[Ten oz]

I expect less attention to be given to the election this time around. I don't think many conservatives honestly believe any of their candidates will beat Clinton. Through their prepping they have built he up for 16yrs now as an inevitable force. A force for which they never created clear rival. Also I think amongst the general public there is some boy who cried wolf syndrome. Foxnews and other conservative media went very hard and loud after Obama. They said his tax plan, healthcare, and immigration moves would destory the country. They went all in against everything Obama and over stated their case time after time. I dont think there is any energy left to play that game with Clinton. The Media will try but in a few months it will die down and fall in to a circling patterning.

[MigL]

Don't know much about her opponents, but this is her election to lose.

There are no Democrats who can beat her for the nomination ( but didn't they say that when she went up against B. Obama ).

And there are no Republicans who can beat her on election day ( Jeb who ? Although if he plays his cards right, he may have a shot at her second term ).

 

I like her, more so than Bill. Let's hope she ( is allowed to ) gets things done.

I guess it'll be all male interns in the white house after 2016.

[Ten oz]

They said that back in 07' about Clinton. However at this point in 07' Obama was already in the race.this time around no one is running against apparently. A few might eventually toss their hats in but they will be running for cabinet positions and not the nomination.

[Willie71]

My concern with Clinton is she is hawkish, and contrary to her presentation, has strong alliances with the big banks. She is reasonable on social issues, health care, and immigration.

 

The republicans seem to be out republicing each other to see who can cut more socially, hate muslims more, hate homosexuals more, and encourage a christian theocracy more.

 

Rand seems the least offensive, but in comparison to a centrist position, let alone liberal, he is extreme. He's just not as extreme as the other right wingers, who are entering right wing fascist territory. If a republican president is elected (other than Rand), the U.S. will become an imperialist fascist theocracy. This is scary to me.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Rand seems the least offensive, but in comparison to a centrist position, let alone liberal, he is extreme. He's just not as extreme as the other right wingers, who are entering right wing fascist territory. If a republican president is elected (other than Rand), the U.S. will become an imperialist fascist theocracy. This is scary to me.

Rand is less boisterous than some of his counterparts, but I'm skeptical of the opinion that he is less extreme in some areas. Prior to a year or so ago (when it was becoming clear that he would probably run), his views on certain social issues were just as extreme as any of your best tea party members. The difference is that he's tried to pull back from those positions in the past year or so, which I rather suspect is to garner more of the middle-of-the-road votes and make him a more attractive candidate for a general election. Personally, I believe him to be extremely disingenuous and I find it hard to believe that his flip-flopping on social issues is because he's genuinely changed his thinking on matters. As I said a while ago in this thread, however, I doubt he'll get through the primaries.

 

I still, don't know who I'd prefer on the republican ticket. They're all just as terrible as they were last time I commented here. Cruz and Bush seem to be the figureheads for each end of the Republican spectrum, so I wouldn't be overly surprised if it ended up being between them. That being said, I liked Scott Walker for it for a while and although he's been a bit quiet in the last few weeks, I'd still put him at or near the top in terms of likelihood to win the nomination.

[iNow]

Walker is a very likely nominee with lots of grassroots appeal. It's the classic, "I like him cuz he's got moxie!" mentality. He's won 3 elections in 4 years (the people of Wisconsin loved him so much they kept recalling him then voting him back into office while he slashed unions and workers rights).

 

On the Republican side, I always respected Jon Huntsman when he threw his hat into the ring last time around and I thought he'd be an excellent President with intelligent reasonable views overall that I could get behind, but he wouldn't have an icicles chance in an active volcano of making it through the primary where the batcrap crazies and fundies seem to rule the day.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman,_Jr.

 

 

Meanwhile, if we're being honest about the next "leader of the free world," we should probably just acknowledge this and move on about our day:

 

[Ten oz]

Interest in the 2016 election is down and Republican voters don't actually believe any of there candidates have a good chance to win according to a recent pew research survey.

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/02/campaign-2016-modest-interest-high-stakes/

 

IMO Walker and Bush are the only real candidates on the Republican side. Rand Paul is just riding his dad's legacy. I think in 10yrs Rand Paul will be out of elected office and hosting some type of Alex Jones/Glenn Beck styled show making millions. I don't believe he or any of his positions are genuine. Cruz is running to heighten his profile. He knows he isn't going win the nomination. Rubio is running for a job. He is hoping for VP. It remains to be seen if Rick Perry and Chris Christie run.

 

Just as Mitt Romney moved quickly toward the center once he obtained the nomination I suspect Jeb Bush would always. I don't believe there will be a lot of substantial differences between candidates Jeb Bush and Hilary Clinton. Both will be centrists on the economy, hawkish on forgien policy, progressive on immigration, and vague on the environment. I think Walker would actually make a more interesting candidate. At least if Walker got the nomination we would get to debate (media/watercooler) some real differences in political philosophy.

 

On the Democratic side Clinton seems unchallenged. Since her defeat in the primaries it seems she has put in a lot of work shoring up everyone's support. Bill Clinton specifically has done a tremendous amount of campaigning for Democrats around the country. I had hoped Elizabeth Warren and Howard Dean would step up and challenge Clinton from the left but it isn't going to happen. It doesn't even seem like Joe Biden will run.

 

iNow mentioned John Huntsman. I would be excited if he switched parties and ran as a Democrat. The field is clear on the Democratic side so he would get a ton of press. The Republican party has basically booted him anyways. If he switched it would only be him vs Clinton.

[Willie71]

Clinton's last video was almost perfect. It was very well done. If those are her actual policies, and not empty promises, she would have my vote if I was American. She didn't mention foreign policy though.

[overtone]

I don't believe there will be a lot of substantial differences between candidates Jeb Bush and Hilary Clinton. Both will be centrists on the economy, hawkish on forgien policy, progressive on immigration, and vague on the environment.

Jeb, like every Bush and all national Republican politicians, is a rightwing extremist incompetent on the economy, who will favor privatizing various government functions, expanding "free trade" internationally and backing it with coercion (military if necessary), deregulating the financial markets, breaking all unions and anything like them, and cutting rich people's taxes even more.

 

His Court nominations will be miserable wingnuts. He's corrupt.

 

Hillary will be an ordinary rightwing conservative economically - she will maintain some regulatory control over the financial markets, avoid privatizing key governmental functions, possibly prevent the Republicans from killing off the Post Office, and in general manage things like the decently motivated Eisenhower Republican she is.

 

Her Court nominations will be impressive and competent. She's a player, but not personally corrupt.

Edited April 17, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

I do like that Clinton is calling for a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics. Also glad to see her support of Obama's call to make community college free.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-backs-constitutional-amendment-campaign-money/story?id=30317090

[Mr. Laymen]

Pretty sure Monsanto has already secured the presidential seat for Hilary.

[Delta1212]

Jeb, like every Bush and all national Republican politicians, is a rightwing extremist incompetent on the economy, who will favor privatizing various government functions, expanding "free trade" internationally and backing it with coercion (military if necessary), deregulating the financial markets, breaking all unions and anything like them, and cutting rich people's taxes even more.

 

His Court nominations will be miserable wingnuts. He's corrupt.

 

Hillary will be an ordinary rightwing conservative economically - she will maintain some regulatory control over the financial markets, avoid privatizing key governmental functions, possibly prevent the Republicans from killing off the Post Office, and in general manage things like the decently motivated Eisenhower Republican she is.

 

Her Court nominations will be impressive and competent. She's a player, but not personally corrupt.

Honestly, after the disaster that the post-Bush Court has been, and with the current crop of very underwhelming candidates for the office of President all around, Supreme Court nominations is pretty much going to be a driving factor in my vote. I don't care much for Hilary, and think that if a Republican actually won, the Dems would probably retake Congress fairly quickly so the damage would be at least somewhat limited.

 

But there is no way in hell I'm going to vote for someone who's going to swing the Court even farther into nutso territory than it has already gotten at this point.

[MigL]

Its been repeated a few times on this forum, that the reason Obama has not acheived all he promised during his presidency is that Republican controlled Congress has put up hurdles at every step.

 

Now you say that even if a Republican was to be elected President, the Democrats would probably retake Congress and 'limit the damage'.

 

Isn't that also subverting Democracy ? Why is one a 'hurdle' and the other 'limiting damage' >

Democracy doesn't mean getting the result you want Delta1212, just like free speech isn't just what you agree with, or are comfortable with.

It is the will of the people, wether right or wrong in my mind, or yours.

[Delta1212]

Its been repeated a few times on this forum, that the reason Obama has not acheived all he promised during his presidency is that Republican controlled Congress has put up hurdles at every step.

 

Now you say that even if a Republican was to be elected President, the Democrats would probably retake Congress and 'limit the damage'.

 

Isn't that also subverting Democracy ? Why is one a 'hurdle' and the other 'limiting damage' >

Democracy doesn't mean getting the result you want Delta1212, just like free speech isn't just what you agree with, or are comfortable with.

It is the will of the people, wether right or wrong in my mind, or yours.

I don't think anyone suggested that democracy was all about "getting what you want." But just because it was a democratic decision doesn't automatically make it a good decision. An important part of the democrat process is being able to discuss the probable outcomes of one choice versus another.

 

There are no good candidates currently likely to win the Republican nomination. There aren't a lot of great options on the Democratic side either, but the GOP has been especially crazy recently. Any one of the likely candidates would probably turn out to be a mess in office, which won't magically change just because a bunch of people voted them into the position.

[Ten oz]

@ Overtone, I agree. Something has to be done about federalist judges. They are hurting this country worse than any politician.

[Phi for All]

Isn't that also subverting Democracy ? Why is one a 'hurdle' and the other 'limiting damage' >

 

Subverting democracy, like the Republican extortion regarding negotiations on the debt ceiling? Or when the Republicans vote down their own good legislation just because the Democrats also think it's good? Or when a middle class conservative is coerced into voting for higher taxes on himself so the wealthy can pay less? Or when the Republicans decide that who you sleep with is their business? Or when the Republicans decide you're not as important as your unborn baby?

 

I've never liked that so many middle class conservatives end up thinking the Republican party represents them (or at least they vote that way), when it clearly does NOT. This is more anecdotal than anything, but I know quite a few folks who vote that way because their bosses let them know that if taxes are raised on them, there will be some layoffs, despite the fact that businesses pay far less taxes today than they did during the 50s so many conservatives are fond of. How is that democracy?

 

So yes, when everyone else in the whole world wonders why the richest nation doesn't have national healthcare, and the president makes a move to correct that, but is met with the stupidest, most inane objections and is blocked at every turn by lies and deceit and corporate agendas, I call that a "hurdle". And considering the fiasco even many conservative would agree was inflicted by the Bush administration on this country, and the continued efforts of the Tea Party to send us back to the social and economic Dark Ages, I would call any restriction of their influence "limiting damage".

[MigL]

Unfortunately ( or fortunately ) all those people, with all their misguided beliefs and fears are entitled to a political opinion and a vote.

That's what we call Democracy (to answer your question ).

 

What is your alternative Phi ?

[Ten oz]

Unfortunately ( or fortunately ) all those people, with all their misguided beliefs and fears are entitled to a political opinion and a vote.

That's what we call Democracy (to answer your question ).

 

What is your alternative Phi ?

Problem IMO is that many of the members of administrative branch weren't elected in a efficiently democrat way. California has 37million resident but only get the same number of Senate seats as Wyoming even though Wyoming only has half a million residents. Add to that the fact the gerrymandering makes many local elections nothing more than a formality. So while the United States may be a Republic that masquerades as a democracy our system doesn't actually serve the majority all that well.

[Delta1212]

Unfortunately ( or fortunately ) all those people, with all their misguided beliefs and fears are entitled to a political opinion and a vote.

That's what we call Democracy (to answer your question ).

 

What is your alternative Phi ?

Yes, people are entitled to vote. No one has disagreed with that. Just because someone is entitled to vote doesn't mean their votes are going to be intelligent and informed or lead to positive outcomes, but neither has anyone suggested that a poor outcome means that people's votes should be taken away from them, which is what you seem to be insinuating that people are advocating.

 

I can be in favor of democracy while believing that it doesn't lead to 100% positive results in all cases. It just generally leads to less bad outcomes than most alternatives.

 

I've never been a fan of the belief that if something is a net positive, everything that has to do with it must automatically be a good thing, and suggesting that it is not means you are somehow against the idea as a whole. It's a spurious argument at best and intentionally disingenuous at worst.

Edited April 17, 2015 by Delta1212

[Phi for All]

Unfortunately ( or fortunately ) all those people, with all their misguided beliefs and fears are entitled to a political opinion and a vote.

That's what we call Democracy (to answer your question ).

 

What is your alternative Phi ?

 

Oh please. How did you get, "They shouldn't be allowed to vote!" from what I said?!

 

B i t o f a s t r e t c h , i m o.

 

My alternative is to remove as much money as possible from the elections. AFAIC, it's the money that's been skewing efforts away from democratic representation, no matter which party (it's just that the conservative right seems to use a more emotion-laden approach to issues that, frankly, should be replaced with more reason, less fear and hatred).

 

I don't want large employers using unfair influence on their people to vote a certain way. I'd also change our voting system from first-past-the-post to a more proportional representation system. Right now in the US, the conservatives aren't listening to anyone but conservatives. Their pundits are feeding them a bunch of emotionally-charged rhetoric that doesn't hold up well to scrutiny, but it never gets scrutinized by the choir. So I'd like to see a nationally supported information program, true journalism whose only agenda is to give the straight facts about what is happening around the world, with no spin and no need for advertising. I think we desperately need journalism we can trust not to be in someone's pocket.

[StringJunky]

 

... I'd also change our voting system from first-past-the-post to a more proportional representation system.

The problem with this is nothing well get done or good plans/policies will be compromised too much. I prefer the idea of a voted executive political group being able to implement their policy as they intend it to be executed. I want to see a clear five year plan not a mish-mash of opposing ideas from different groups being implemented.