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

[Irvine511]

Take me to 'Out of Touch' Court because I think the New York Times is liberal and not centrist. That's the gist I'm getting


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

That's correct. The NYT editorial board may publish some liberal op-eds, but their reporting is not liberal. Liberals may read the NYT, but that does not make it liberal.

 

[Oregoropa]

One way the Dems can screw up is to nominate Warren. She follows in Obama's progressive footsteps, but Obama was a masterful campaigner. I don't think she is able to gain much additional momentum outside of the Liberal Enclaves of big cities and college towns. Yes the demographics are shifting so there will be some more votes there. I think Warren is the GOP dream match-up where they can break through to 270.

 

[wolf]

Is this what republicans mean by "taking their country back"?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

No, I think your referring to the anti-immigration wing of the party that wants a 100 foot wall along the Mexican border and to deport around 10 to 20 million people. Tea Partiers indeed.

 

[wolf]

At least the GOP is doing all they can to stop black people and the youngs from voting. "Voter fraud" and subsequent ID laws were cooked up for a reason.

Comparisons to the past are irrelevant. We live in a 45/45 country, as evidenced in the fact that while Obama's approval ratings have never been very high, they also haven't been very low. There aren't many persuadable voters the way there were in 1988 or 1980. Politics is more polarized than ever, and it will take something truly calamitous and destructive and ruinous like the Iraq War concocted by an evil forest creature who steals our children and pushed through by a discredited half-wit president to get that 45% on either side to turn against their candidate. It comes down to the independents, and turning out the base. And as the 45% who vote GOP start to die off, all that may be left is voter suppression. Unless policies -- on SSM, on immigration -- start to change.

Except the Iraq war did not do that to George Bush in 2004. Voter turnout certainly went up over 2000, but it was all for George as he finally won the popular vote by roughly the same numbers as Obama won his re-election in 2012.

 

[DaveC]

One way the Dems can screw up is to nominate Warren. She follows in Obama's progressive footsteps, but Obama was a masterful campaigner. I don't think she is able to gain much additional momentum outside of the Liberal Enclaves of big cities and college towns. Yes the demographics are shifting so there will be some more votes there. I think Warren is the GOP dream match-up where they can break through to 270.

I would much prefer Hillary coast to an easy win this time around, be a capable and intelligent President (and avoid scandal), and then once those demographics kick in a little more, have a great chance of electing a much more leftist and progressive President in 2024. Such a person I think would have a much easier time passing a liberal agenda with the nation warmed up to the idea of these type of policies, and could really get some good things done. In this political climate, I think it will be hard to advance that type of left-wing agenda in 2016-17.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

One way the Dems can screw up is to nominate Warren. She follows in Obama's progressive footsteps, but Obama was a masterful campaigner. I don't think she is able to gain much additional momentum outside of the Liberal Enclaves of big cities and college towns. Yes the demographics are shifting so there will be some more votes there. I think Warren is the GOP dream match-up where they can break through to 270.

I completely disagree. Just take a look at Hillary's current populist stance or the fact that Obama presented himself as more of a leftist then he really was...there's no down side to being a liberal in a center-left country like ours at the moment. Anybody leaning blue would vote for Warren anyway and she might even excite some people on the far left enough to actually vote for her. I think the end result, especially when you consider the electoral college, would be negligibly different. The general election is a cakewalk for whichever nominee the party's members choose...

...as in, it's a cakewalk for Hillary.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

In this political climate, I think it will be hard to advance that type of left-wing agenda in 2016-17.

It's not the climate, it's the fact that the election cycles/districting are helping Republicans keep control of the House, and occasionally, the Senate. That's what needs to change.

I do think Hillary's first four years, at the very least, will be a complete stonewall. She'll face the same shit Obama currently does and will be unable to pass any significant legislation. Unfortunately, like her husband before her, she likely will cave to the GOP and pass a few awful bills with them just to look like she accomplished something.

2020 is the key year because that will be redistricting post-census and the Democrats can't do worse than 2010 given that it will be a Presidential election this time around. If they do well enough on the state level to control the redistricting process in a lot of states, then the GOP's House advantage will dissipate a bit.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

For what it's worth concerning approval ratings, Obama's was always to be taken with a grain of salt. He had great approval ratings in the separate regions around the country before 2012 except for the South. His approval rating in the South (states that he basically wasn't going to win anyway) was so low (a net -18) that they singlehandedly bring down his national average quite a bit. If you looked at his numbers, both polling and approval-wise in the key swing states, he was absolutely fine throughout that period. The South is literally so antagonistic towards him that it wipes out almost all of the positive numbers from the rest of the regions and has lead him to hover around 50 percent.

 

[PhilsFan]

One way the Dems can screw up is to nominate Warren. She follows in Obama's progressive footsteps, but Obama was a masterful campaigner. I don't think she is able to gain much additional momentum outside of the Liberal Enclaves of big cities and college towns. Yes the demographics are shifting so there will be some more votes there. I think Warren is the GOP dream match-up where they can break through to 270.

Progressive footsteps??? Obama's biggest problem, by far, is that he is way too far to the middle. He's more right than left on way too many issues. You seem easily swayed by GOP propaganda.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[LemonMelon]

Obama isn't quite the candidate I voted for, honestly. Loved his oratorical skill, but his (very liberal) voting record was also totally in line with what I wanted. That didn't pan out. Pisses me off how centrist he is, but that is fairly common.

A lot of democrats are way too conservative for my tastes though and I could easily imagine them essentially replacing the GOP as a more centrist option when that party inevitably weakens as their voter base dies off. Then a more liberal option will pop up. Conservatism as we know it will have to change (or take on a new face) because what we have now is pretty unappealing to young voters that will eventually turn out in larger numbers as they grow older. I really can't imagine the GOP having much relevance in a couple decades. Not with their current policies intact.

 

[Irvine511]

Except the Iraq war did not do that to George Bush in 2004. Voter turnout certainly went up over 2000, but it was all for George as he finally won the popular vote by roughly the same numbers as Obama won his re-election in 2012.

Look at Bush approval ratings from 2004 on.

Lol @ finally won the popular vote. Really does tell you that something was deeply wrong about the 2000 election.

In 2012, Barack Obama crushed Mitt Romney 332 to 206 EV. This despite inheriting the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. He also won over 51% of the population and had 5 million more votes than Mitt Romney.

In 2004, W Bush won reelection with 286 EV to 256 for Kerry. He won 50% of the population -- and had 3 million fewer votes than Obama did in 2012.

 

[Irvine511]

For what it's worth concerning approval ratings, Obama's was always to be taken with a grain of salt. He had great approval ratings in the separate regions around the country before 2012 except for the South. His approval rating in the South (states that he basically wasn't going to win anyway) was so low (a net -18) that they singlehandedly bring down his national average quite a bit. If you looked at his numbers, both polling and approval-wise in the key swing states, he was absolutely fine throughout that period. The South is literally so antagonistic towards him that it wipes out almost all of the positive numbers from the rest of the regions and has lead him to hover around 50 percent.

Probably because he's black.

 

[wolf]

Look at Bush approval ratings from 2004 on.

Lol @ finally won the popular vote. Really does tell you that something was deeply wrong about the 2000 election.

In 2012, Barack Obama crushed Mitt Romney 332 to 206 EV. This despite inheriting the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. .

Probably the most significant thing was winning despite the economic downturn. That really made it crystal clear how demographic change and the electoral college over time had given the democrats a big advantage in Presidential elections.

 

[wolf]

Old white dude dies and he's replaced on the rolls by an 18 year old latina that feels strongly about immigration reform. Then the process repeats itself the next day and the next..

So you like it when old white people die?

 

[DaveC]

So you like it when old white people die?

It's the circle of life, man.

 

[Diemen]

Ugh. Let's stay away from rhetorical cheap shots, please.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

What exactly is Ted Cruz trying to say here? Hispanics are better than blacks, whites? WTF...?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ted-cruz-dont-think-ive-202843704.html

Presidential candidate and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said on Wednesday that he has never seen a Hispanic person begging for money on the street.

"I don't think I've ever seen an Hispanic panhandler. And the reason is: In our community it would be shameful to be begging on the street," Cruz said, recalling a conversation he once had with a Latino businessman on the topic.

Cruz, who is of Cuban descent, made the point while speaking in Washington at a question-and-answer session with the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

He used the example to argue the Republican Party should be able to compete for the Latino vote. Hispanics, Cruz said, share many of the same values that are championed by GOP leaders.

"I think the Hispanic community is a fundamentally conservative community. If you look at the values that resonate in our community, they're faith, family, patriotism, hard work," Cruz said. "Now if you want people to work their fingers to their bone, hard work, you'll have Hispanic men and women lining up to work hard to provide for their families. Those are all conservative values."

Cruz has made the same argument in the past.

Maybe im reading too much into it because i really don't like the twisted S.O.B.

 

[DaveC]

I can tell he's never been to Toronto. There are probably a half dozen homeless Hispanic panhandlers within a 3 block radius of my office right now.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

So you like it when old white people die?

Everybody's got to die at some point. Some 85 year old that sucks at voting succumbs to the affects of old age? Yeah, that's a great thing for everyone else.

I will throw a fucking party the second one of these conservative justices croaks, that's for sure. Freedom!

 

[bobsaget77]

Everybody's got to die at some point. Some 85 year old that sucks at voting succumbs to the affects of old age? Yeah, that's a great thing for everyone else.

I will throw a fucking party the second one of these conservative justices croaks, that's for sure. Freedom!

You disgust me. Seriously, screw you.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[DaveC]

Boy, this thread is going to be barrels of fun for the next 18 months

 

[bobsaget77]

Let's put it this way...
What if I came on here and said that I cheer when black criminals die. There would be an outrage and deservedly so. But if someone says that they cheer when old white people die, theres nothing. That's the kind of crap that pisses me off about people around here.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Irvine511]

Well, there's a distinction here.

I don't wish death on Antonin Scalia. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

However, do I think his decisions are bad for people and bad for America? Do I think we would live in a better country were he off the court? If he died tomorrow of natural causes, would not a part of me be happy that a spot opened up on the court of another Obama appointee? Absolutely.

But he was put there fair and square. Elections have consequences. So it's fine.

Also, Ruth Bader Ginsberg is the greatest living octogenarian. I wish she were immortal.

 

[BVS]

Let's put it this way...
What if I came on here and said that I cheer when black criminals die. There would be an outrage and deservedly so. But if someone says that they cheer when old white people die, theres nothing. That's the kind of crap that pisses me off about people around here.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Calm down, he only made the post 2 hrs ago, and only one other person has posted since then. No one's cheering him on. He's already been warned by a mod and the poster is known to troll. Overreact less and engage more and you'll be less pissed off in here.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[deep]

I think it's ok when old white people die
old black people too. If you can make it to your 80s that's been a good ride

If Alito, Scalia got called home to the Jesus they claim they believe in it would not be a tragedy.
I hope that happens after Hillary is elected with a Democratic Senate.

 

[digitize]

I can tell he's never been to Toronto. There are probably a half dozen homeless Hispanic panhandlers within a 3 block radius of my office right now.

Or Austin, Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, or San Antonio... which happen to be in the state that he represents.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[LuckyNumber7]

He's a GOP pawn. Those comments were made to impress Hispanic voters even if they insult everyone else. #conspiracy




#justkidding
#onlyalittle

 

[wolf]

Its official, Carly Fiorina is running for President!

Carly Fiorina announces presidential bid


CNN)Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina announced her candidacy for president on Monday, becoming the first declared female candidate to seek the Republican Party's nomination.
"Yes, I am running," Fiorina said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "I think I'm the best person for the job because I understand how the economy actually works. I understand the world; who's in it."
The ex-Silicon Valley executive and long-shot White House contender has never held public office. In 2010, she unsuccessfully ran for Senate in California, losing to Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer.
She is now one of only a few women ever to seek the Republican Party's nomination for president -- among them, former Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, who was a candidate in 2012, and former North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole, who made a brief run in the 2000 cycle.
Fiorina has been laying the groundwork for a possible presidential campaign over the past few months, traveling to early states like Iowa and New Hampshire and meeting with activists and donors.
Casting herself as an outside-the-beltway candidate with years of private sector experience, she has been particularly critical of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her work in government.

Carly Fiorina announces presidential bid - CNNPolitics.com

 

[PhilsFan]

Carly Fiorina failed to register this domain.

 

[wolf]

Carly Fiorina failed to register this domain.

Well, Hewlett Packard is a private company, not a government jobs program. Every business, big or small, sometimes needs to lay off people in order for the business to survive.