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

[deep]

Jeb Bush and Rubio can not be on the same ticket.

I am starting to wonder if I am too quick to say Rubio won't get the nomination. I have compared this to 2008. The Dem primaries. Obama team doubled down and went all in, the difference then is that all the polling told them even Obama could beat any GOP nom because of the terrible Bush- Cheney presidency.

I think Rubio and his people are smart, just like Obama and his people were in 2008. I just believe everyone, even the GOP insiders believe 2016 will be Hillary's year. So why would Rubio want to lose to her then. He will be Governor in 2018. And with 2 year's executive experience, and doing a good job and being popular, a 2020 run makes a lot more sense. 2020 could be a difficult reelection for Hillary. Even if things are going fairly well after 12 years of Obama / Clinton people will want something different.

12 years of Reagan - Bush, could not beat a young popular Governor in 1992.


with all that said, this is intersting


Marco Rubio: The $40 Million Man

 

[deep]

The Bush team would probably like Huckabee to get in.

I suppose if the GOP allows enough debates before the early primaries, that could shake some things up. But after last election they have put a tighter leash on the whole nominating process. Some will argue they want to clear the path for an 'establishment (Bush) candidate.

 

[wolf]

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.

I actually thought Jeb Bush would not even run(he has yet to officially declare) because of the baggage with the name. After more time had past maybe, but not now.
So if Jeb really does run and wins the nomination, will get to see just how heavy the baggage is.
Also, Bush won the popular vote and electoral vote in 2004, despite some considering him the worst President ever and having in the opinion of many made the "worst, costliest foreign policy mistake since Vietnam". If that is truly the baggage that W succeeded in overcoming in 2004, perhaps his brothers climb to the top is not as steep as it would seem.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Make no mistake -- the Bush name, whether you like either of the past to or not -- is a positive. People... conservatives... know who he is. His name carries the weight of negativity, sure, but you're talking about Republicans being able to rally behind someone of a winning name. Look at Mitt Romney, that's a losing name if you ask me. Newt Gingrich... losing name. Lots of politicians, unsuccessfully so, run for president. Either in a primary or in the general election.

The president is a figurehead for the party and the ideology. Republicans want a president, a winner, simply so it's not a democrat in office. The extremes will be weeded out, as per usual.

 

[deep]

Jeb is without a doubt the best GOP candidate. And will give the best showing in 2016 for the GOP. Will it be enough to win? That is the question. I also find this legacy talk a bunch of silliness. Yes, it could be a factor, because the American electorate is that stupid. But I find it disappointing in here that people I consider reasonably intelligent seem to project onto Jeb or Hillary some of the other Presidents actions or behaviors. Aside from the name and dna there is no connection on the style or outcomes of the career and Presidency of Bush 1 and W. Sure they used some of the same people in their cabinets. But Bush 1 was in charge and knew when to say no to them.

Any evaluation of W Governorship and style in Texas bears little resemblance to Jeb's in Florida. There are many GOP candidates that would be more of a W clone. If you don't want a Bush-Cheney repeat voting for Jeb is a better choice than voting for many of the other GOP candidates.

 

[deep]

Rubio would bake a cake for a gay-wedding


Marco Rubio: I'd attend a gay wedding - Nick Gass - POLITICO

 

[Irvine511]

I actually thought Jeb Bush would not even run(he has yet to officially declare) because of the baggage with the name. After more time had past maybe, but not now.
So if Jeb really does run and wins the nomination, will get to see just how heavy the baggage is.
Also, Bush won the popular vote and electoral vote in 2004, despite some considering him the worst President ever and having in the opinion of many made the "worst, costliest foreign policy mistake since Vietnam". If that is truly the baggage that W succeeded in overcoming in 2004, perhaps his brothers climb to the top is not as steep as it would seem.

The reason Hillary is not president is because of her Iraq vote in 2002. By 2007 the disaster of Iraq had become finally clea to the American public in a way that it wasn't in 2004, barely a year after the initial invasion and still close enough for the GOP to throw a patriotically manipulative convention and still use 9-11 fears to eek put the smallest margin of victory for a second term, I think ever. Iraq, as the worst foreign policy mistake since Vietnam, was certainly a reason why Obama's "no" vote in 2002 resulted in a landslide victory over the war's biggest cheerleader in 2008.

W Bush himself admits that he is his brother's biggest obstacle to victory.

 

[wolf]

The reason Hillary is not president is because of her Iraq vote in 2002. By 2007 the disaster of Iraq had become finally clea to the American public in a way that it wasn't in 2004, barely a year after the initial invasion and still close enough for the GOP to throw a patriotically manipulative convention and still use 9-11 fears to eek put the smallest margin of victory for a second term, I think ever. Iraq, as the worst foreign policy mistake since Vietnam, was certainly a reason why Obama's "no" vote in 2002 resulted in a landslide victory over the war's biggest cheerleader in 2008.

W Bush himself admits that he is his brother's biggest obstacle to victory.

Yet despite that Iraq vote Obama named her Secretary of State, and now she is the front runner to become President of the United States in 2016. Obama actually did not "vote" in 2002. He was in the Illinois State Senate, not the U.S. Senate. Had Obama actually been in the U.S. Senate in 2002, its likely he would have voted the same as Hillary did. The majority of Democrats in the Senate voted for the war.
Also the war had been going for nearly 2 years by November 2004, with over a thousand Americans killed in the war, tens of thousands of Iraqi's, and no WMD's found and the insurgency increasing. All the reasons for opposing the war before and after were sharply in focus by the election of 2004. Remember Michael Moore's popular film Fahrenheit 9/11 from the summer of 2004?
Obama's victory in 2008 may have been due to the financial crises just as much as anything with Iraq. In addition, the margin of victory is not what you would call a landslide. Clintons victories in 1992 and 1996 were larger than Obama's in 2008.
The fact that Hillary is so popular despite voting for the Iraq war could be another sign that Jeb Bush will be well insulated against the baggage his brother is supposed to bring. It is surprising because I really did not think Jeb would run, but now it looks like he will be the nominee for the republicans.

 

[Irvine511]

You can apologize for your war support whenever you want, STING.

 

[wolf]

I never heard of Sting supporting the Iraq war?

 

[Irvine511]

No one does.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Rubio would bake a cake for a gay-wedding





Marco Rubio: I'd attend a gay wedding - Nick Gass - POLITICO

I fucking hate Marco Rubio and this just makes me hate him more. Slimy little shit.

"Oh yeah I would go to a gay wedding, because if I love that person I would want to be there for something important! But God forbid I was given the ultimate power in this country, I'd do everything in my power to ensure it never happened."

What's worst is you know he doesn't even think that. That's what makes him just so detestable IMO.

 

[wolf]

I fucking hate Marco Rubio and this just makes me hate him more. Slimy little shit.

"Oh yeah I would go to a gay wedding, because if I love that person I would want to be there for something important! But God forbid I was given the ultimate power in this country, I'd do everything in my power to ensure it never happened."

What's worst is you know he doesn't even think that. That's what makes him just so detestable IMO.

What do you think of Jeb Bush?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

If you're referring to what Jeb Bush said on "respecting other people's opinions," that was a sad dog with his tail between his legs.

Jeb Bush wasn't promoting the fact that he is down with the gay, even though he'll fight against them. He was observing the fact that his side lost, and that's the way it is.

Don't get me wrong, Jeb's viewpoints on such things are a big reason why I still wont vote for him. I'm not supporting him. But Rubio's approach is much more... youthful politician.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I fucking hate Marco Rubio and this just makes me hate him more. Slimy little shit.

"Oh yeah I would go to a gay wedding, because if I love that person I would want to be there for something important! But God forbid I was given the ultimate power in this country, I'd do everything in my power to ensure it never happened."

What's worst is you know he doesn't even think that. That's what makes him just so detestable IMO.

But is he detestable, or are we detestable for allowing this two party system, which was never the intent of our democracy, to take a strangle hold over our government; to where the only way you can get nominated is by kowtowing to the extremes of each party, shitting all over your own personal beliefs?

 

[DaveC]

Regis, my final answer is going to be C, "all of the above".

 

[bono_212]

But is he detestable, or are we detestable for allowing this two party system, which was never the intent of our democracy, to take a strangle hold over our government; to where the only way you can get nominated is by kowtowing to the extremes of each party, shitting all over your own personal beliefs?

 

[PhilsFan]

Our democracy was very poorly designed if the intent was not a two-party system.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

But is he detestable, or are we detestable for allowing this two party system, which was never the intent of our democracy, to take a strangle hold over our government; to where the only way you can get nominated is by kowtowing to the extremes of each party, shitting all over your own personal beliefs?

I threw my hat in the ring third party for irrational hope of pulling 5% in order to realign campaign funding under "major party" rules.

He's still detestable, and the problem of a two party system is a bit bigger than just us. It's etched into the stone. Not easy to reverse.

 

[bono_212]

If people stopped being so defeated about it (easier said than done, I know) that would be a big boost.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Hehe, I remember PhilsFan in 2012 going all "this isn't the election to vote 3rd party you're a total waste of a vote" and somebody else going off about it being the most important election of my lifetime (which was a load of crap statement).

 

[Oregoropa]

My prediction: Hillary is going to continue to struggle as the 'Clinton Cash' book rolls out. So far her campaign as appeared inauthentic. She has bussed in Democrat operatives into a meet and greet at a coffee shop. The media is not giving her as much cover as she is used to. Seeing weakness in the Clinton machine I think more people might throw their hat in the ring.

I'm not a Democrat. For those of you who generally side with Democrats who would you want to see if not Hillary?

 

[BVS]

Hehe, I remember PhilsFan in 2012 going all "this isn't the election to vote 3rd party you're a total waste of a vote" and somebody else going off about it being the most important election of my lifetime (which was a load of crap statement).

Will the third party vote ever not be a waste of a vote if we're still functioning under the electoral college system?

Perot and Nader were probably the 2 biggest third party runners I can think of in my lifetime, and both played a big part in handing the election over to the candidate who most opposed the third party.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[nbelcik]

I'm not a Democrat. For those of you who generally side with Democrats who would you want to see if not Hillary?

Definitely Elizabeth Warren, a real progressive who actually stands for principles that benefits everyday Americans rather than the rich. But I fear she would be corrupted by all the money that comes with a presidential campaign, plus her foreign policy isn't there yet.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Vlad n U 2]

How 'far' to the left (by American standards) is Warren?

 

[PhilsFan]

Hehe, I remember PhilsFan in 2012 going all "this isn't the election to vote 3rd party you're a total waste of a vote" and somebody else going off about it being the most important election of my lifetime (which was a load of crap statement).

Winner take all means two parties. Third party candidates are irrelevant in America.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[bono_212]

Only because two parties are allowed to strangle the system because of funding.

 

[anitram]

Only because two parties are allowed to strangle the system because of funding.

While that is a large part of it, you also have a structural problem with the winner-take-all system.

The US is not a parliamentary democracy, this in itself is the largest barricade to a multi-party system, money notwithstanding.

 

[LemonMelon]

Change is DUE from US voters.

This post is me taking action. Everyone currently buying into our bullshit two-party oligarchy has 1 of 2 choices. They can either take action themselves and "CHANGE" the culture here OR they can look forward to more embarrassing candidates in the future from these pissweak political parties.

Democrats, Republicans and their yes-men will not strong-arm me into keeping my mouth shut on this matter. It’s called “FREEDOM OF SPEECH”. I will no longer be a silent drone to this oppression and their tyrannical two-party system.

Things will change. I know people.

Let's make like Devin Hester and take this shit to the WHITE HOUSE.

 

[Irvine511]

My prediction: Hillary is going to continue to struggle as the 'Clinton Cash' book rolls out. So far her campaign as appeared inauthentic. She has bussed in Democrat operatives into a meet and greet at a coffee shop. The media is not giving her as much cover as she is used to. Seeing weakness in the Clinton machine I think more people might throw their hat in the ring.

I'm not a Democrat. For those of you who generally side with Democrats who would you want to see if not Hillary?

When has the media ever given her "cover"?

Wasn't the whole argument in 2008 that the media fawned over Obama and was rough on her?