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

[BigMacPhisto]

Clinton's a corporatist and war hawk, so in a lot of ways, there isn't much difference. Unlike recent Obama, she'll actually concede to GOP demands and sign legislation that the inevitable Republican-held House decides to pass.

The only way she really loses though is if Bernie Sanders manages to catch on. The guy's pretty likable once people realize what he stands for and who he is, but he's going to have literally no money to work with (he's foregoing Super PACs and large donations out of principle) and even if Sanders were to win a lot of early states (which really wouldn't be that surprising), how in the hell is he going to do well in states like California that are going to be loaded with millions of low-information voters that will just check the box next to Hillary's name?

Meanwhile, all of the other Dem contenders to Clinton are pretty much to her right, so nobody would have any reason to actually vote for them. As sad as it sounds, Clinton was one of the more liberal Senators while she was in Congress. Pathetic, really.

Warren is not going to run. People forget that most of the Democratic Party establishment has already endorsed Clinton, including Warren. Warren's also not much of a campaigner/debater and tends to just read prepared speeches in public verbatim. She's controlling her image to a great degree and trying far too hard to avoid slip-ups...convincing evidence that the people around her don't think she'd be able to survive a grueling campaign without making a lot of snafus.

And again, she doesn't want to run whatsoever and has already endorsed Hillary. Move on.

It's either a populist revolt that gets Sanders into the White House or we'll be crowning our first queen in Jan 2017.

 

[Diemen]

The Republicans I like: Cruz, Rubio, Walker, Paul.

Genuinely curious: what do you like about Cruz?

 

[wolf]

Clinton's a corporatist and war hawk, so in a lot of ways, there isn't much difference. Unlike recent Obama, she'll actually concede to GOP demands and sign legislation that the inevitable Republican-held House decides to pass.

The only way she really loses though is if Bernie Sanders manages to catch on. The guy's pretty likable once people realize what he stands for and who he is, but he's going to have literally no money to work with (he's foregoing Super PACs and large donations out of principle) and even if Sanders were to win a lot of early states (which really wouldn't be that surprising), how in the hell is he going to do well in states like California that are going to be loaded with millions of low-information voters that will just check the box next to Hillary's name?

Meanwhile, all of the other Dem contenders to Clinton are pretty much to her right, so nobody would have any reason to actually vote for them. As sad as it sounds, Clinton was one of the more liberal Senators while she was in Congress. Pathetic, really.

Warren is not going to run. People forget that most of the Democratic Party establishment has already endorsed Clinton, including Warren. Warren's also not much of a campaigner/debater and tends to just read prepared speeches in public verbatim. She's controlling her image to a great degree and trying far too hard to avoid slip-ups...convincing evidence that the people around her don't think she'd be able to survive a grueling campaign without making a lot of snafus.

And again, she doesn't want to run whatsoever and has already endorsed Hillary. Move on.

It's either a populist revolt that gets Sanders into the White House or we'll be crowning our first queen in Jan 2017.

If the democrats were to put up Bernie Sanders, they would get crushed in the election like McGovern was crushed in 1972.

This is a centrist country, even if it is center left now. That means Bernie Sanders would have no chance in a national election.

 

[Irvine511]

i would tend to agree, however, we live in a country which does not require voting -- turnout, even in high turnout elections like 2008, is still, what, only 60% of the electorate?

if someone like Sanders could motivate those who don't vote to vote for him, it could be interesting.

of course, i generally think that's a pipe dream and a hypothetical.

if you want to increase voting -- which the GOP does not want to happen -- then don't have an election on fucking Tuesday when most people have to work.

 

[bobsaget77]

Sanders has no chance. Hillary will win the nomination without any struggle.
And yeah, the repubs are praying hard for a terrible voter turnout. That'll give them a better chance.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Sanders would likely fare just as well as Clinton in the general election. For every woman that doesn't vote because Hillary isn't in the running, Sanders picks up a newly enthused liberal.

And there's no reason to buy the whole "too liberal to win" rhetoric. Poll after poll shows the vast majority of this country's citizens side with the Democrats on nearly every single issue. The existence of some bogey group in the middle that can actually be persuaded is pretty much a myth at this point. Yes, those low information voters that can be convinced definitely get targeted like crazy, but the whole point of the advertising is to rally the base and get them to turn out in the first place.

The country is clearly center-left at this point and continually moving towards the left given the shift in demographics and social attitudes. What Sanders would be saying he wants to do in practice would be hardly different from the lip service Obama gave people in 2008. Nobody shied away from it then, nor would they now.

 

[bobsaget77]

Here I thought that for years liberals have been clamoring for less old white men in the office. I guess Bernie Sanders is the exception?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BigMacPhisto]

People on the far left want the person that best suits their policies, be it Sanders this year or Kucinich eight years ago. That's all.

 

[BVS]

Here I thought that for years liberals have been clamoring for less old white men in the office. I guess Bernie Sanders is the exception?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Stop thinking in Fox News cliches...

 

[bobsaget77]

Stop thinking in Fox News cliches...

It's not a cliche buddy....
This MacPhisto dude is the one who said he has parties when old white politicians die. Yet he's clamoring for Sanders. Stop thinking in the everyone who isn't a bleeding heart liberal watches Fox 24/7 cliche....


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BVS]

It's not a cliche buddy....
This MacPhisto dude is the one who said he has parties when old white politicians die. Yet he's clamoring for Sanders. Stop thinking in the everyone who isn't a bleeding heart liberal watches Fox 24/7 cliche....


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Bob, you've got to start thinking for yourself. Don't bother yourself with the trolls. Stop using the canned speech, "old white men", seriously this is straight out of Fox News and Limbaugh propaganda. And please stop using "bleeding heart", it shows you were raised by stuck in the 70/80's conservatives.

 

[wolf]

Sanders would likely fare just as well as Clinton in the general election. For every woman that doesn't vote because Hillary isn't in the running, Sanders picks up a newly enthused liberal.

And there's no reason to buy the whole "too liberal to win" rhetoric. Poll after poll shows the vast majority of this country's citizens side with the Democrats on nearly every single issue. The existence of some bogey group in the middle that can actually be persuaded is pretty much a myth at this point. Yes, those low information voters that can be convinced definitely get targeted like crazy, but the whole point of the advertising is to rally the base and get them to turn out in the first place.

The country is clearly center-left at this point and continually moving towards the left given the shift in demographics and social attitudes. What Sanders would be saying he wants to do in practice would be hardly different from the lip service Obama gave people in 2008. Nobody shied away from it then, nor would they now.

I don't see it, but the 2016 election results will be very interesting to watch. Also an increase in voter turnout does not always bode well for Democrats. Voter turnout was much higher in 2004 than it was in 2000 and the Democrats still failed to remove Bush from the White House.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Jeb Bush clearly mishears a question, says that he would have gone to war in Iraq based on the information they had back then, just as the majority of Congress did, including Hillary, but wouldn't go based on what they know now.

The press spends the next week playing selectively edited clips, creating a controversy out of nothing.

And just think... we've got 18 more months of this!

 

[Diemen]

Stop thinking in Fox News cliches...

It's not a cliche buddy....
This MacPhisto dude is the one who said he has parties when old white politicians die. Yet he's clamoring for Sanders. Stop thinking in the everyone who isn't a bleeding heart liberal watches Fox 24/7 cliche....


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Bob, you've got to start thinking for yourself. Don't bother yourself with the trolls. Stop using the canned speech, "old white men", seriously this is straight out of Fox News and Limbaugh propaganda. And please stop using "bleeding heart", it shows you were raised by stuck in the 70/80's conservatives.

Could you both drop this ongoing feud thing, please?

 

[Oregoropa]

I thought we were in the nest, the 'trust tree' ?

Let all opinions be heard.

As to the question about Cruz, he went to DC saying he was going to do what he promised the voters. In the GOP primary he is the only candidate to stay consistent on being staunchly against illegal immigration. That I predict will be the big elephant in the room as the process plays out.

He won't be the nominee but maybe a kingmaker between Walker and Rubio.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BVS]

I thought we were in the nest, the 'trust tree' ?

Let all opinions be heard.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Real opinions? Yes please.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[DaveC]

Real opinions? Yes please.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

That's an awfully pretentious thing to say.

 

[BVS]

That's an awfully pretentious thing to say.

My point is that there are some in here that share their opinions, engage, and bring something to this forum. I don't care what side or what their opinion is; these are posters this forum needs to be a vibrant political forum again. And then there are those that just regurgitate and don't engage, they end up causing a distraction.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Oregoropa]

Yes. I agree with DaveC. As the only conservative to not be bull dogged out of here. I am glad to offer up my opinion from the right of center side. Otherwise this thread would get stale


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Diemen]

My point is that there are some in here that share their opinions, engage, and bring something to this forum. I don't care what side or what their opinion is; these are posters this forum needs to be a vibrant political forum again. And then there are those that just regurgitate and don't engage, they end up causing a distraction.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

If all they're doing is regurgitating and causing a distraction, wouldn't it be less of a distraction if you just ignored them? Why cause more of a distraction by making a point of combating their every statement?

 

[BVS]

Yes. I agree with DaveC. As the only conservative to not be bull dogged out of here. I am glad to offer up my opinion from the right of center side. Otherwise this thread would get stale


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I think playing the "bull dogged" victim card is part of the problem... Being outnumbered is different from being bull dogged.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BVS]

If all they're doing is regurgitating and causing a distraction, wouldn't it be less of a distraction if you just ignored them? Why cause more of a distraction by making a point of combating their every statement?

Well I think that's easy to say, but when part of that also comes with "screw you"s and attacks it's not as easy to do.

Even yourself as a moderator has come in and asked these certain posters to engage and answer questions rather than just ignore them.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[the iron horse]

Genuinely curious: what do you like about Cruz?

As a Libertarian I like these new faces in the Republican Party. Much better than old faces like Bush and Huckabee who are Big Government Republicans and far from the conservatives they claim to be.

Why Cruz?

-He is authentically bright. The liberal Alan Dershowitz has said that Cruz was the best student he had ever had at Harvard’s Law School.

-Among the Republican candidates, Cruz is the only one to state plainly that the U.S. stayed too long in Iraq and were wrong in trying to turn it into Switzerland.

-He is a Constitutionalist and believes in a limited federal government.

-He is honest and straight to the point.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Am I missing something? He looks a cartoon villain.

 

[deep]

I am not a fan of him either.

But the guy is smart and has accomplishments.

what IH wrote is accurate.

 

[Diemen]

Well, honest and straight to the point are arguable. But the same could be said of most politicians.

 

[BVS]

Besides being anti-science, he was one of the Republicans that gave legitimacy to the martial law conspiracy in TX. Straight shooter my ass...


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

Ted Cruz is a smart guy no doubt about it.

He got his govt shutdown and mandatory DOD furloughs, which all of the Tea Party seems to applaud. And now he has his healthcare through the ACA or Obamacare, which was the reason for his filibuster.

He's smart alright, and pretty fucking scary. What's even more scare though are his supporters...those are the motherfuckers to watch out for.

 

[Irvine511]

Ted Cruz isn't interested in governing. Ted Cruz is interested in Ted Cruz, Inc.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

Ted Cruz isn't interested in governing. Ted Cruz is interested in Ted Cruz, Inc.

You might as well say the same thing about the Tea Party. They hate the Govt, keep talking about "liberty" and quoting Thomas Jefferson "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

I suspect if Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would spit on them. I could be wrong. I just don't see why these people are so fed up with their country they want to incite violence and continually work against the Govt that is trying to help them.

If the Govt wants to help you, thats tyranny? WTF? Liberty is, to these people, bloodshed and hate. Whatever McVeigh.