2016 US Presidential Election Pt. III - Page 17 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-29-2015, 06:48 PM   #321
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,351
Local Time: 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
But I don't think the number of voters who think fondly on the Bush Jr. years is all that big, even among Republicans (the level of his "true conservatism" would be up for debate). So Jeb would have a hard time getting much support from his own party, let alone the country at large, as a result.
Actually, GWB polls about similar to Obama when you're asking members of his own party which is very high in fact. If that weren't the case, I doubt Jeb! would have ever run.

On the other hand, Republicans know damn well just how much GWB is hated by this country (or at least was hated by the end of his second term). That makes Jeb! by default a candidate that they aren't necessarily going to want to get behind because they don't feel he can beat Clinton.
__________________

BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 10-29-2015, 06:48 PM   #322
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 06:25 PM
Bush was so tone deaf to go after Rubio with that planned attack line after Rubio had just fended off a question on the same topic.

Stick a fork in Jeb. His establishment support will start seeping over to Rubio.

Looking at the Real Clear Politics Average:

Outsider-Insurgent: Trump 26.8 / Carson 22 / Cruz 6.6 / Fiorina 5.8 / Paul 3.4 /

Insider-Establishment: Rubio 9 / Bush 7 / Huckabee 3.8 / Kasich 2.6 / Christie 2.4

Outsider-Insurgent: 64.6 %

Insider-Establishment: 24.8 %

At this point in the race the grass roots GOP has a strong preference for the outsider candidates. I predict Rubio will be the victor for the establishment wing, but will have a strong headwind blowing against him from the base.

I think we can safely say the surviving insurgents will be Trump-Carson-Cruz. Latest polls have Carson surging neck and neck with Trump in South Carolina, while Trump maintains dominant leads in NH and Florida. After that latest polls have Trump and Carson in tight races in TX, PA, OK. I predict that Carson will win Iowa while Trump takes NH. Carson has to win South Carolina to have any shot IMO. This is how things stand in my mind right now.

I feel that Carson is peaking, but I just don't see him as being a viable candidate. His calm demeanor can only carry him so far, but he seems shaky on certain topics in debates. (I personally do not get the Carson attraction at all). Right now Trump is Teflon. He's less likely to make a campaign ending gaffe than say Carson. Trump's aura of leadership and grasp of economics will carry him farther with GOP voters.

Rubio needs to hope that the Trump-Carson schism in the base remains tight so primary races are a 3-way tossup with each candidate polling around 28% and undecideds breaking to him.

That's my prediction on 10/29/15. I'll have to re-check the post 3 months from now to see if I'm anywhere close.
__________________

Oregoropa is offline  
Old 10-29-2015, 06:56 PM   #323
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,351
Local Time: 06:25 PM
Well, we sure as hell know that if Rubio or even Cruz can't gain enough traction that Romney is going to enter this thing and prove to immediately be the best possible contender to the anti-establishment candidates. The establishment might be able to hold their nose for Cruz, but they aren't going to let Trump or Carson be the nominee. The former is a cartoon character and not only will the latter not be able to handle the big stage, but he is already disqualified due to saying rape abortions should be illegal.

Romney would easily bundle up millions in donations immediately and claim places like the North East with relative ease. The group that willingly got behind him last time are in no way the same people voting for Trump or Carson. Romney basically would kill the candidacies of all the other insiders immediately and automatically hit 30% nationwide right out of the gate.

Desperate establishment will also be able to point to head-to-head polls where Romney clearly does better than Clinton than any of these other people along with Romney's favorables among the general public being way higher. When they start to hear the phrase "Madam President" in their nightmares, Republicans will start to gravitate toward someone like Rubio or Romney in order to try and prevent that from happening. Keep in mind that part of the reason McCain and Romney became the nominees in the last two cycles were because they fared best in the head-to-head match-ups against Clinton/Obama.

Funny enough, the third part of the Carson conversation has been captured in a lot of articles about the guy. His supporters think that because he's black that he's actually going to win over a huge swath of the black vote in the general election, not realizing that it's extremely unlikely given what polls are already showing us, but also that his abortion remarks are the same sort of crap that outright destroyed the Senatorial chances of a few men in a couple of red states back in 2012. So, they think "black = easy victory" when reality is "foot in mouth doctor = landslide loss"
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 10-29-2015, 07:13 PM   #324
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,379
Local Time: 07:25 PM
You've got a lot of big thoughts on racial politics, BigMacPhisto.

Bluer White is online now  
Old 10-29-2015, 07:33 PM   #325
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,978
Local Time: 07:25 PM
I still think Jeb is in it, and merely keeping his guns for later. Avoid being a Trump who gained steam too fast.

I still think though that Trump stands a chance.

I don't think Cruz stands a chance.

I would venture to say this election is going to be either extremely radical, or back to the basics again for the GOP. Meaning, Trump or Carson, or Bush or Rubio.
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 10-29-2015, 07:39 PM   #326
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,379
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post

I would venture to say this election is going to be either extremely radical, or back to the basics again for the GOP. Meaning, Trump or Carson, or Bush or Rubio.
Wide open then.
Bluer White is online now  
Old 10-29-2015, 08:48 PM   #327
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,978
Local Time: 07:25 PM
I suppose so, I just don't think there's any room in the middle. Meaning, I think guys like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are losers in the end. Anti-establishment but part of the establishment.

It's either a complete overthrow, or good ol' Jebby or his pet Rubio.

Just how I see it.
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 10-29-2015, 09:20 PM   #328
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 83,891
Local Time: 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
Because, imho, gambling is not nearly as serious a problem as what is going on in the middle east, which i think is what he said. He did mention ISIS, among other things, if i recall correctly.
I don't know a ton about what exactly happened at the debate, I haven't seen any of it in context.

But I will say that I would prefer to have a nice mixture of both foreign AND domestic topics at stake, and not just the ones dealing with social issues. It does matter that corporations like these are getting rich off of get rich quick scheming and then ALSO insider trading.

IMO
__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 10-29-2015, 09:30 PM   #329
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,978
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
Okay thanks for clearing that up. Hopefully you can see why i thought you were talking about me and not Christie, though.

Yes, sorry. Upon retreading what I wrote, I didn't quite make it clear that the ISIS thing wasn't directed at you but rather a "what-if" of what you were saying.
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 10-30-2015, 08:20 AM   #330
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Mack_Again's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: definitely Osaka
Posts: 7,124
Local Time: 06:25 PM
It is so hard to contribute to discussion about Republican debate when you're pretty liberal; I can only see them thru scope of (somewhat) irrational hate and "liberalism should be better" type of idea

but seriously, thou. I can't believe in conservatism in this ever-changing world; to me, it is natural for everything to change and in some sense, advance.
Mack_Again is offline  
Old 10-30-2015, 09:41 AM   #331
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: southwest USA
Posts: 3,302
Local Time: 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack_Again View Post
It is so hard to contribute to discussion about Republican debate when you're pretty liberal; I can only see them thru scope of (somewhat) irrational hate and "liberalism should be better" type of idea.

When I watch democratic debates, I think they all suck. So I know what you mean. How a conservative would watch the debate is radically different from how a liberal would watch it and vise-versa.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
bobsaget77 is offline  
Old 10-30-2015, 10:02 AM   #332
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,978
Local Time: 07:25 PM
I think it's pretty easy to see objectivity in the matter, mostly BECAUSE I don't agree with any of them. If I sympathized with a candidate like I have in the past with a Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson, or Ron Paul, I would inject a little more bias.

But since I hate them all, it's easy to watch it as an outsider and be objective about it.
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 10-30-2015, 10:22 AM   #333
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,676
Local Time: 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
But since I hate them all, it's easy to watch it as an outsider and be objective about it.
Um... I don't know that hating something makes you more objective about it.
Diemen is offline  
Old 10-30-2015, 11:10 AM   #334
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,978
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Really? It sounds like you're objecting for the sake of objecting. There's no grounds for you telling me how I think.

I don't like any of the candidates. I don't believe in most anything they represent. It is easy for me to see two combatants and draw lines at who is more effectively delivering their own messages. I have no stake in their arguments. Therefore, no bias. What they say doesn't matter to me, because I won't be voting for them. So, yes, I definitely objectively find it much easier to break down their arguments. Ted Cruz is my least favorite politician in that group, and yet I still think he was the clear and decisive winner at getting his point across. I think it's a lot easier to see that when I don't have any bias towards liking one of them over another.
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 10-30-2015, 12:14 PM   #335
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,676
Local Time: 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
There's no grounds for you telling me how I think.
Except I didn't do that. Your initial argument for your objectivity was a little suspect. Hate for something usually introduces some negative bias towards it.

Had you worded your initial argument as "since I have no stake in their arguments, it's easier for me to be objective," then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Diemen is offline  
Old 10-30-2015, 03:48 PM   #336
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,978
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Except I didn't do that. Your initial argument for your objectivity was a little suspect. Hate for something usually introduces some negative bias towards it.

Had you worded your initial argument as "since I have no stake in their arguments, it's easier for me to be objective," then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Yes, I strongly dislike each candidate. All to a level where I they have lost my consideration for being voted for.

Willingness to vote someone is not two-sided. You can hate someone, but you can't negative-vote someone. It's a totally left-skewed distribution of how much I like them versus how much I have the ability to quantitatively do something about it. You can vote for someone, or you can not vote for someone. If you hate them, you won't vote for them. If you like them, you might vote for them.
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 10-30-2015, 09:36 PM   #337
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 05:25 PM
Quote:
Imagine this: You are someone who cares passionately about your country, and you've decided to run for public office. You're a serious person and serious thinker - and a great many people around the country view you as such. You're running for president, and although you have not held prior elective office, you have put a campaign together that in just months is more substantial than some of your opponents who've previously worked in government.

You have a wife and three kids, and your decision to take a leave of absence from your profession impacts both the time and financial resources that are usually reserved for your family. But your family understands that this is worth it, because you're prioritizing your campaign around a policy issue that more than 90 percent of the American people say they want to see reformed. They want to see big change on this issue - and you've vowed to place it at the top of the agenda. If fact, you're only one doing so. Oh, and let's say your name is Larry.

Now imagine this: the national political party you're affiliated with won't let you speak. Not in the national debates that so many voters focus in on during the presidential primary contest. They won't give you a lectern, and they won't even provide you with a rational explanation. Think of all of the work and sacrifice that you and your team and your volunteers have put in - and for what? To get a public slap in the face and a stifling of the expression that you've sought to make clear to the broader electorate: that once in the White House, you will begin to drain the swamp of the dirty dollar influence of big money politics. And why is it that you, Larry, are being denied access? Is it because not every American knows your name yet? Is it because you're considered a "fringe" candidate? By who? And why? The process of categorizing candidates is a matter of comparison. It is in the eye of the beholder, so let's look a bit closer.

Here are the facts about Larry and his campaign, versus some of his competitors, who have all already been included in the first set of debates:

1) Larry has appeared in national television interviews and print news coverage across the media spectrum, in recent months receiving as much if not more coverage than Democrats Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee (both of whom quit the race after their first debate appearance).

2) Larry raised more than a $1 million in just a month - crowdsourcing contributions from all over the country in the name of reforming Washington's "gift exchange economy." Among the Democrats, Martin O'Malley barely eclipsed $1 million, with a whole three months to do it. Webb pulled in under $700,000. And Lincoln Chafee raised $15,457.90 for the quarter (this is not a misprint). All three were invited to debate.

On the Republican side of the dollar, Lindsey Graham raised $1 million for the entire quarter. Bobby Jindal raised under $600,00. Rick Perry's quarter came in under $300,000. Jim Gilmore barely topped $100,000. Are these fellas fringe candidates? All four stood tall and proud on the debate stage.

3) Public Polling. Not that this should necessarily be the barometer of qualification. Same as money. But it often is. And it's a Catch-22 for Larry, because you have to be included in the polls - to register in the polls! The DNC has excluded Larry from most polls, but in other polls he has come up easily within the margin of error of Chafee, Webb, and O'Malley.

This man, "Larry," is Lawrence Lessig, the Harvard law professor, open internet advocate, and campaign finance reform leader who authored the comprehensive 2011 book: Republic Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It. The brilliant argument laid out in this book was one of the main inspirations and sources for my writing Unlock Congress.

I was supporting Lessig's candidacy prior to his visit to the Windy City last weekend. But spending a few hours with him on a Saturday as he met with volunteers and then as we drove together out to his lecture at a Chicago Humanities Festival event in Evanston only further convinced me that I have the right horse - no matter what classification he is saddled with.

Lessig is arguably more knowledgeable than any other person in or out of Congress on the issue of the money flood and the political corruption it causes. He is equally knowledgeable and forceful about the solution, which begins with publicly financed matched contributions so that average Americans can have a renewed and more equal voice in our elections process. You remember - that "one person, one vote" theme that the dirty dollars make a mockery of every two years.

This reform is the first of three planks in the Citizen Equality Act that Lessig is running on; the two others address inequality in voting access and the cynical rigging of our elections in the hyper-partisan, hyper-dysfunctional U.S. House. His point, and mine, is that until we reform some of the major rules that impair our defective electoral and legislative processes, we will remain unable to successfully confront issue challenges that our country desperately needs to make progress on.

If you haven't yet heard of Larry Lessig or the Citizen Equality Act before, it's quite understandable. But shouldn't you get the chance? A real opportunity to hear him describe and advocate for these reforms on a national stage with his opponents - some of whom have demonstrated a commensurate or lesser degree of support in the race thus far? Isn't that what our system is supposed to be about?

The Republicans went so far as to have both an early evening debate and a primetime debate on the same day - twice - in order to include all 17 of their candidates (three of whom have never held elective office before). Now that the five Democrats who debated the first time around have been reduced to three - shouldn't they let the fourth voice onto the stage? Make it an actual debate? The powers that be must be very worried about the truths Lessig is prepared to present to the American people. But this fear is a detriment to both the party as well as our democracy.

In the year of the "outsider," one side of the aisle's frontrunner is a billionaire barker. On the other side of the aisle, they're silencing the true outsider. The bold one. It's wrong, and it's time to let Larry speak.
Let Larry Speak | Michael Golden

I saw him promoting Republic, Lost way back when...I couldn't believe it. Here he was, a Harvard professor, and not a Leftist quack, saying the things I'd come to believe (little ol' me, an average nobody) after years of following Independent/Third Party 'outside of the box' politics. It was more than apparent what was wrong. And finally someone serious to talk about it.

We should not be wasting time with Bernie Sanders hippy fantasies. Get this guy on stage and get HRC to meaningfully respond to his bulletproof criticisms. /Off soap box
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 11-01-2015, 06:19 PM   #338
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,351
Local Time: 06:25 PM
First poll that occurred entirely after the debate is now out.

Trump actually managed to gain a little on Carson who stayed at about the same level.

Rubio had the biggest bounce. He's hovered around 7-9% in a lot of recent polls. He's now at 15% after the debate, firmly in third place.

Cruz and Bush had a minor uptick and downswing respectively. It's a big deal for Bush though since it means dropping from 6% to 4% means you basically lost a third of your supporters overnight.

Christie didn't really move the needle. He and Fiorina had minor upticks, but when you're sitting at 3% and 6% nationwide, it doesn't mean all that much.

Post-Debate Poll Shows Trump, Rubio, and Cruz are the Top Three Debate Winners | One America News Network


Trump's really starting to look like the real thing. His supporters are still sticking around.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 11-02-2015, 05:47 PM   #339
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Mrs. Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: pig farming in Bolivia
Posts: 7,325
Local Time: 06:25 PM


Mrs. Garrison is offline  
Old 11-02-2015, 07:46 PM   #340
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,760
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
Let Larry Speak | Michael Golden



I saw him promoting Republic, Lost way back when...I couldn't believe it. Here he was, a Harvard professor, and not a Leftist quack, saying the things I'd come to believe (little ol' me, an average nobody) after years of following Independent/Third Party 'outside of the box' politics. It was more than apparent what was wrong. And finally someone serious to talk about it.



We should not be wasting time with Bernie Sanders hippy fantasies. Get this guy on stage and get HRC to meaningfully respond to his bulletproof criticisms. /Off soap box

Well, he dropped out today.




Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
__________________

namkcuR is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×