US Presidential Election 2016...because it's never too early

[Diemen]

So in Rubio's presidential candidacy announcement, he took a jab at Clinton representing the candidate of yesterday. Meanwhile, Rubio:

-Is against gay marriage
-Is against normalizing relations with Cuba
-Doesn't believe in climate change

 

[anitram]

Rubio sucks but to deep's point I also see him angling for the governorship of Florida and not the White House.

I think Scott Walker is the scariest of them all. A lot of what he says really resonates with people. There are many states out there which are truly not in a position to continue to offer DB pension plans to public servants, etc - even if you believe in them as a matter of policy, the money just isn't there. And he's always run on a very corporatist idea - reduce unions, rely entirely on the free market to correct all ills, etc. This is where the money is.

 

[deep]

Yes, I never said Rubio would be a bad pick

I just said he won't be the VP nom, > because he won't take it.

At this time I believe this will be a two person race, Jeb Bush and then for the not Bush crowd, Scott Walker.

A bit like the Dems in 2008, Hillary Clinton vs the not Clinton crowd -falling behind Obama.

I do think Jeb has the slight advantage, but Scott Walker could get the nomination.

Of course it is still early, and a lot of things could change.


Also, I really don't see Rubio being much of a plus with the Hispanic vote, except that small segment of Cubans that gets lumped into that group. Jeb is a way better candidate for them than Rubio.

Cubans are conservatives, Hispanics are liberals. There are two countries that if you are born there and you are on American soil you will be entitled to full rights of American citizenship. One is the United States, the other is Cuba.



I can understand why some of you are not writing Rubio off, in these days of social media dominating so much

he looks like the winner

 

[deep]

Not every VP is Joe Biden ya know, just look at Cheney.

Just wondering if you remember or know how Cheney got the nomination?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Sarah Palin is a lunatic.

Perfect example of someone looking good on paper.

I don't even know how she looked good on paper. She was, what? A 44 year old whose history amounted to... three years experience as governor of part of essentially Canada. Before that? Mayor of Wasilla. Previous to that, her educational background is a mess.

Now, Rubio is, of course, the same age. But you're talking about someone with much more credible experience at various levels of government.

 

[PhilsFan]

It was a really reactionary move to Obama not picking Hillary as his running mate.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[deep]

it seems like everybody is assuming that the nominee can appoint the VP.

I would not be surprised if Hillary turned it down as many turned down McCain.

Hillary fared much better as Secretary of State, than she would have as VP.

 

[Irvine511]

I don't even know how she looked good on paper. She was, what? A 44 year old whose history amounted to... three years experience as governor of part of essentially Canada. Before that? Mayor of Wasilla. Previous to that, her educational background is a mess.

but she was a woman who liked guns and had a personal story that would appeal to the anti-choice base.

McCain has always had problems with the base of the GOP, and they love guns and hate abortion. check and check.

 

[Irvine511]

Hillary fared much better as Secretary of State, than she would have as VP.

yes, a better resume builder and doesn't tie her to a legacy if it goes wrong, and it removes Bill from interfering.

 

[deep]

Palin is not why McCain loss in 2008

Bush - Cheney 8 years worst Presidency ever is why he lost.

Palin got McCain more votes being on the ticket for sure.

Both McCain and Palin were seen as anti - Bush, mavericks. And Palin definitely pulled some bitter Hillary supporters that wanted to vote for a woman against Obama's machine that manipulated the primary process to barely edge out the nomination.

 

[Irvine511]

all of 'em, Katie.

 

[deep]

yes, a better resume builder and doesn't tie her to a legacy if it goes wrong, and it removes Bill from interfering.

and if Obama had high popularity ratings being his S o S is a win, too.
Stepping down when she did was smart. Something we should look for in a president.

 

[deep]

that nominating process the Obama's team deployed is quite telling

I will say I kind of admire it. To be so driven to get the win. He has used similar tactics to advance some of his policies. And I will say I do think most of the policies are for the greater good. I do believe over time his low ratings will rise and he should be on the list of the better presidents. As long as I am around I will be making those arguments and not regretting voting for him both times.

 

[Irvine511]

I do believe over time his low ratings will rise and he should be on the list of the better presidents. As long as I am around I will be making those arguments and not regretting voting for him both times.

his ratings aren't really that low, especially in a country that's 45% vs 45%.

 

[wolf]

Yes, I never said Rubio would be a bad pick

I just said he won't be the VP nom, > because he won't take it.

At this time I believe this will be a two person race, Jeb Bush and then for the not Bush crowd, Scott Walker.

A bit like the Dems in 2008, Hillary Clinton vs the not Clinton crowd -falling behind Obama.

I do think Jeb has the slight advantage, but Scott Walker could get the nomination.

Of course it is still early, and a lot of things could change.


Also, I really don't see Rubio being much of a plus with the Hispanic vote, except that small segment of Cubans that gets lumped into that group. Jeb is a way better candidate for them than Rubio.

Cubans are conservatives, Hispanics are liberals. There are two countries that if you are born there and you are on American soil you will be entitled to full rights of American citizenship. One is the United States, the other is Cuba.



I can understand why some of you are not writing Rubio off, in these days of social media dominating so much

he looks like the winner

In Rubio's defense he does have a Hispanic background unlike Bush. That will appeal to some Hispanics regardless of the politics involved. Rubio can pull in Hispanics that Bush or Romney could not.
Another factor going for Rubio is his youth when contrasted with Hillary Clinton. Hillary would be the second oldest President the U.S. has ever had while Rubio would be one of the youngest.
Rubio has appeal with Hispanics and young voters that republicans struggle to get. Hillary is old and white which will work against her with some of the young and racially diverse democratic voters.
While Bush certainly has good points, Rubio provides a better contrast with Hillary.

Palin is not why McCain loss in 2008

Bush - Cheney 8 years worst Presidency ever is why he lost.

Palin got McCain more votes being on the ticket for sure.

Tom Ridge would have been a better VP than Palin for McCain. I'd say much of McCain's lost could be the simple fact that its hard for a party that has held the White House for two consecutive terms to win a third consecutive term. Its only happened once since World War II.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

Just wondering if you remember or know how Cheney got the nomination?

Are you referring to Cheney being in charge of the selection process and then ultimately selecting himself for Bush's VP?

I don't even know how she looked good on paper. She was, what? A 44 year old whose history amounted to... three years experience as governor of part of essentially Canada. Before that? Mayor of Wasilla. Previous to that, her educational background is a mess.

Now, Rubio is, of course, the same age. But you're talking about someone with much more credible experience at various levels of government.

Palin left office after only serving half of her term, so i don't know if she had more than a year's experience at Gov when McCain picked her. A Horrible choice by McCain, even if it did "help" him as many suggest. The fact that anyone would want her as a POTUS is frightening.

it seems like everybody is assuming that the nominee can appoint the VP.

I would not be surprised if Hillary turned it down as many turned down McCain.

Hillary fared much better as Secretary of State, than she would have as VP.

I seem to remember Joe Biden saying he was offered the choice of either VP or SoS, and he chose SoS.

 

[Irvine511]

Young and racially diverse people don't like the GOP, even if they cough up a candidate who is young and racially diverse.

If Rubio wishes to appeal to these voters, he will have to offer more progressive policy decisions, not a biography.

 

[iron yuppie]

I think Scott Walker is the scariest of them all. A lot of what he says really resonates with people. There are many states out there which are truly not in a position to continue to offer DB pension plans to public servants, etc - even if you believe in them as a matter of policy, the money just isn't there. And he's always run on a very corporatist idea - reduce unions, rely entirely on the free market to correct all ills, etc. This is where the money is.

I agree with you about the potential resonance of the fiscal/financial responsibility platform. That will be the strongest sell the GOP has to younger voters. That said, Walker has such little personality and charisma that it's hard to see him as a legitimate contender.

I was living in Wisconsin (Madison) during the whole union dissolution fiasco, and Walker hardly handled himself with grace during that time. Maybe he's gained some poise since, but I doubt it will be enough to make him appealing to a wide swath of voters.

 

[wolf]

Young and racially diverse people don't like the GOP, even if they cough up a candidate who is young and racially diverse.

If Rubio wishes to appeal to these voters, he will have to offer more progressive policy decisions, not a biography.

The majority of young and racially diverse people don't like the GOP, but that does not mean that none of them can be swayed to vote for a GOP candidate. You'd be surprise how the, way some one looks, or the sound of their name can impact an election. Many people do not pay attention to politics and will be influenced to vote for a certain person by such raw or irrelevant criteria. The GOP candidate does not have to win the majority of young voters and racially diverse people. They just have to win as many of them as they did in say, the 2004 election, to achieve victory.

 

[Oregoropa]

Young and racially diverse people don't like the GOP, even if they cough up a candidate who is young and racially diverse.

Rand Paul can score some points with tech-savvy millennials over NSA spying.

 

[BVS]

Rand Paul can score some points with tech-savvy millennials over NSA spying.

His anti-science views will wash that out. Look, the truth is the GOP will not win over any new portion of the young vote with any of these candidates. If they ever want that, they'll have to change some of their platform, plain and simple.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Yeah, Rand Paul is a dumbass. If he knew what was good for him, he'd start adopting a couple of progressive views. Doesn't even have to touch stuff like gay marriage, but his privacy rights stuff that are very popular don't mean shit when he actively portrays his hypocrisy. A guy who champions personal freedom and choice, yet stands alongside so many things that inhibit that. At least his father was able to avoid crap like that by just playing the "defer to the state level, I don't give a shit" card.

 

[Oregoropa]

His anti-science views will wash that out.

Climate Change ranks very low on voters priorities polls show.

Also has taken a progressive position on mandatory minimums and prison reform. Those issues affect minority communities disproportionately

 

[BVS]

Climate Change ranks very low on voters priorities polls show.



Also has taken a progressive position on mandatory minimums and prison reform. Those issues affect minority communities disproportionately

If you're reading Fox News then yes, you are correct.

But it's not just his stance on climate change, his stance on vaccines and other health issues will hurt him.

And beyond that his father will hurt him. It may not have effected him on the state level, but on the national level his family's view on the civil war and their documented racism will end his run if it gets that far.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Irvine511]

The majority of young and racially diverse people don't like the GOP, but that does not mean that none of them can be swayed to vote for a GOP candidate. You'd be surprise how the, way some one looks, or the sound of their name can impact an election. Many people do not pay attention to politics and will be influenced to vote for a certain person by such raw or irrelevant criteria. The GOP candidate does not have to win the majority of young voters and racially diverse people. They just have to win as many of them as they did in say, the 2004 election, to achieve victory.

Wrong. Policy matters. The older, whiter rural folk who tipped the election to Bush in 2004 because of SSM in Ohio are dying off and are not being replaced. Social liberalism has won, and any GOP candidate who doesn't realize this is doomed. It's 12 years later. The country has gotten more liberal on social issues, not less.

 

[wolf]

Wrong. Policy matters. The older, whiter rural folk who tipped the election to Bush in 2004 because of SSM in Ohio are dying off and are not being replaced. Social liberalism has won, and any GOP candidate who doesn't realize this is doomed. It's 12 years later. The country has gotten more liberal on social issues, not less.

Oh, absolutely policy matters, and any of the Republican candidates have a much more challenging climb than they would a decade ago. What I'm saying is that Hillary is not an automatic lock to win the election. I think Bush and Rubio under certain circumstances do have a small chance of winning the election. Hillary's e-mail scandal is a weakness and under certain conditions her age can be a liability depending on who the Republican candidate is. Social issues don't decide elections any more than irrelevant issues like name, charisma, and looks do. Most americans vote on pocket book issues and then after that security. Even if the Democrats had won Ohio in 2004 and won the election because gay marriage was not on the ballot in Ohio, Bush still would have won the popular vote nationwide.

 

[LemonMelon]

But it's not just his stance on climate change, his stance on vaccines and other health issues will hurt him.

As a young voter, I will say right now that I refuse to vote for any candidate that's antivax. Not because it's a high priority issue to me personally but because it implies a lack of intelligence and a tendency to be swayed by garbage journalism. If you can't perform basic research and reason independently, you shouldn't be in office.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I disagree. Most electable is Rubio followed by Bush when it comes to the GOP. The democrats "Blue Wall" 18 states that have voted democrat every election since after 1988 puts the democratic candidate at 242 EC votes. That means "Blue Wall" plus winning Florida(29 EC votes) wins the election for the democrat. So the republicans have to win Florida to even have a chance of winning the election. The only republican candidates that can insure victory in Florida are Rubio and Bush.

So obviously Florida is incredibly important. And I get how you feel that only Rubio and Jeb could take Florida, being from Florida and all.

But yea... nah. Christie could certainly take Florida.

You've seen it here... Of all the republican candidates out there thus far the only one that has at least gotten a "meh, he's okay I guess" reaction from those who lean to the left is Chris Christie.

He can, and would, win swing states. He's not crazy, and he's a hell of a politician.

Which is why the GOP won't nominate him, because you have to pander to the crazy in order to win the republican nomination.

If Bush's last name were Smith, he'd have a much better chance at winning. Democrats will come out in droves to avoid another Bush presidency, even though this one is more like the father than his brother.

 

[Irvine511]

Oh, absolutely policy matters, and any of the Republican candidates have a much more challenging climb than they would a decade ago. What I'm saying is that Hillary is not an automatic lock to win the election. I think Bush and Rubio under certain circumstances do have a small chance of winning the election. Hillary's e-mail scandal is a weakness and under certain conditions her age can be a liability depending on who the Republican candidate is. Social issues don't decide elections any more than irrelevant issues like name, charisma, and looks do. Most americans vote on pocket book issues and then after that security. Even if the Democrats had won Ohio in 2004 and won the election because gay marriage was not on the ballot in Ohio, Bush still would have won the popular vote nationwide.

Social issues are irrelevant? The GOP of 2004 would disagree with you. Social issues increase turnout. Turnout helps the Democrats tremendously. And the GOP is going to have a tough time making her age an issue, since the present day party has given itself over to Reagan worship.

What the GOP needs to do is present themselves as the party of the future, that Clinton is of and from the past, and part of a dynasty.

But to do that, Jeb has to go. And Jeb is going to have big problems getting past the Bush name, since his brother gave us what is widely considered the worst presidency of modern times and the worst, costliest foreign policy mistake since Vietnam. That's heavy baggage, and it's too bad, since Jeb is the smarter of the two.

Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, yet still took power.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

As a young voter, I will say right now that I refuse to vote for any candidate that's antivax. Not because it's a high priority issue to me personally but because it implies a lack of intelligence and a tendency to be swayed by garbage journalism. If you can't perform basic research and reason independently, you shouldn't be in office.

And I agree. Climate change is whatever... science is there and it's real and if you don't believe it, you're wrong. But anti-vaccination movements are well documented to be derived from actual hoaxes. Andrew Wakefield blah blah blah. When Rand Paul, son of a medical fucking doctor, says that, he comes off as a conspirator claiming he doesn't want the government to put things in his body cause they're gonna turn him into a robot or something.