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

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
For anyone who thinks Jeb's Bushiness will prevent him from winning an election, you're wrong.

Jeb is much more of a centrist than W. That's why he's currently fighting that label in his own party. He's also a lot more well spoken than W. He might struggle more with winning a primary, but in my opinion he's Hilary's only threat. Don't forget, Florida is increasingly becoming a blue state, and Jeb is idealized for being able to steal the state. He's essentially the last... good governor this state has had.

He's pretty much the only republican Id be willing to listen to, albeit I probably wouldn't vote for any of them.

For whoever said Ted Cruz would be on a ticket with Jeb though... absurd thought. Jeb is level-headed. Then again... McCain did choose Palin as a running mate.
 
nbelcik said:
Doesn't matter how much brainpower he has if he does things like deny that climate change exists. It's possible to be incredibly intelligent but still be really dumb. Ted Cruz falls into this category.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Click to expand...



he's just really cynical and wants money and influence. people don't want to believe in climate change because it's inconvenient and it may require a change of behavior. Cruz exploits this.
 
LuckyNumber7 said:
For anyone who thinks Jeb's Bushiness will prevent him from winning an election, you're wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree. He can win the GOP pretty damn easily. People writing off Jeb so easily are in for a surprise. What do the Republicans normally do?

1. Big money controls everything in government and politics...and the GOP has plenty of it...nearly all on the side of the establishment.

2. In the 50+ years since the Goldwater mistake, they support the most electable establishment candidate. Always. No matter the rhetoric of Reagan pretending to be an outsider (etc.) none of them were outsiders. They all had big money behind them.

3. Over that same period (since '64), in all but one instance they have nominated a candidate that had been through the fire before. (McCain, Reagan, Dole, Romney...all of them). The one instance where that didn't apply? George W Bush. The legacy vote.

4. George HW Bush is just as much Jeb's father as W is his brother. The establishment (the smart guy business conservatives, not the Reagan-worshippers) respects Bush 41 more than any living Republican. And Jeb is seen as "the smart son" to these people.

5. His stances on immigration and potentially other areas are far more electable than the vast majority of these GOP candidates.

I'm not saying the Bush legacy won't be a drag on him...it certainly will...but people get too narrow minded on this shit. Clinton has as much drag on her too but it doesn't matter in either case.

80% of the people already will vote for the D or the R and it's that simple. Of the 20% in the middle that can be swayed, issues like equal rights (women, gays) and immigration are quite important. Jeb fits that bill. Will he get out of the bloody GOP primary without needing to pander too much? I don't know but if he can show signs of life early on, I think he rolls to the nomination.

And I also agree, he's the only one that could remotely beat HRC. But he won't. The demographics, the electoral college...the basic GOP platform...it's all going against them.

If I had to bet right now, I'd say Walker-Bush or Bush-Walker and that's entirely dependent on whether Walker is a legit national candidate or another Rick Perry/Tim Pawlenty, both wilted like a flower in the national spotlight.
 
Irvine511 said:
he's just really cynical and wants money and influence.
Click to expand...

That's accurate. People should think: Rush Limbaugh. It's not that they don't hold core conservative principles, it's that they pretend to be loons to appeal to the loons that buy into this shit...for money.

Some of them accrue that money through books sales (etc.) and some of them amass wealth through becoming elected to high office. I suspect the main difference between these two types of cynical individuals actually is intelligence.

The sad thing is, you really have to be a fair amount of cynical to get anything done in government. Because of the nature of how elections are won - by creating simple, easily digested fantasies. But here is the PARADOX that people need to understand. The cynical smart guys will get real behind closed doors. The genuine True Believers won't.

So in a lot of cases, it pays more to be cynical...and it's harmful to be sincere. I don't mean "pays more" in terms of $$$, though that too, I mean in terms of doing the work of the people. Like Obama had to drop his fantastical rhetoric ("most transparent administration ever") and go behind closed doors and let the health insurance corporation write the Affordable Care Act. I don't blame him for that for one moment. He got the shit done. Clinton did it all the time too...all the smart guys do. Only to be attacked by the fantasists that believe the crap they were told in order to vote for (whoever).

And the one major roadblock in the way of ANYTHING getting done in Washington? Those True Believers. The folks who are actually sincere and actually believe in what got them elected. The dueling ideologies are fantasies that can't work in the real world. The Left sells a fantasy to aspire to - an ideal that can never be reached. The Right sells a fantasy of selected reality - everyone that doesn't adhere is simply wrong, or biased against them.

Such is the paradox of our government...
 
would there be anything more depressing than Bush vs. Clinton?

talk about dynasties.

that's what was so great about Obama -- he felt like we were finally turning the page on the Baby Boom and moving into the future, getting us out of the culture wars of the 60s and the scars of Vietnam.

and yet here we are.
 
Don't forget Irvine, 1992 was a 3 way dance. If Perot isn't in the mix taking votes from Bush, Slick Willie doesn't win.

When Obama was elected, it felt like a new beginning. Unfortunately, the GOP just did their absolute best to sabotage his presidency, fucking the entire country in the process.
 
The 92 election was about the economy, Perot did not spoil Bush at all. Bush was a very well know quantity, a vote for Perot was a vote against Bush.
 
I really wanted to believe that this time around there would be a stronger push for someone not from the two parties to legitimately run,but it seems that not much has changed, there.

Sent from my SM-G900T using U2 Interference mobile app
 
I threw it away in the past election, too. :sad:

Sent from my SM-G900T using U2 Interference mobile app
 
Irvine511 said:
would there be anything more depressing than Bush vs. Clinton?

talk about dynasties.

that's what was so great about Obama -- he felt like we were finally turning the page on the Baby Boom and moving into the future, getting us out of the culture wars of the 60s and the scars of Vietnam.

and yet here we are.
Click to expand...


In a sense, yeah. But still, there's a lot that both of them represent that's noticeably different from their predecessors. Hillary being a woman... which in today's time is a much bigger deal for the progression of women than in Bill's time... and Jeb well... Jeb really isn't like his brother at all. That's more just from experience of him as governor of my state. He's aaaaalmost the progressive that the Republican Party needs to survive. Dick Cheney aught to give him a talking about how Dicks that love Dicks are a good thing. And perhaps foreign policy accepting the Lesbenese.
 
I agree that Jeb is vastly preferable to his idiot brother and most of the rest of the protest movement we now call the GOP, but how is Mrs Clinton a step forward, beyond her gender?

I'm sure she's competent. But beyond that? Is that enough?
 
deep said:
That suggest that you would.have.preferred to.have.Romney.
Click to expand...

That suggest I would have preferred neither.

Irvine511 said:
I agree that Jeb is vastly preferable to his idiot brother and most of the rest of the protest movement we now call the GOP, but how is Mrs Clinton a step forward, beyond her gender?

I'm sure she's competent. But beyond that? Is that enough?
Click to expand...

Well, thus the problem of a two party system. There's no other option.
 
Well, I don't know. She has a history of politics, so in that sense, she holds a politician's record of back-and-forth. But in my opinion, she's just as much an Obama product as she is a Bill product. In fact, she's just as much of an in between as Jeb is. Half of more of the same, half of something fresh.

I wouldn't say that her gender is what makes her qualified or desirable, but at the same time I wouldn't discount the nature of where she's coming from. She's not as much of a legacy as another Bush... after all... she's the wife of, not the son of. Certainly an interesting dynamic, gender aside (I mean that in the sense of... if every president was a woman, is the husband really a legacy then?)

I'm certainly not in favor of the dynastic presidencies, but at the same time a Hilary/Bush head to head does offer just as much difference as it does similarity.

Strange thought, how would a Dem/Repube ticket like Clinton/Bush fare in a general election?
 
I suppose her other argument is deep experience -- 8 years in the White House as an active creator of policy, 8 years as a Senator, 4 years as Sec of State. That's a considerable resume.

I think that nepotism is still an issue here, though she's always been wildly accomplished. But that's me objecting to the principle, not the person.

And at this point, the 1990s seems like an idyllic time when all we really worried about were Oval Office BJs and shark attacks. It will be interesting if a Democrat appeals to nostalgia for a better, bygone era
 
There was plenty of armed conflict in the world during the 1990s, not a lot of it was on the daily news or internet like it is now. And of course the scope of it is all much bigger today than it was then. Twenty years ago our unit went to Eqypt in a joint mission with their military, today that's not even an option. The entire ME is in turmoil and while that is not necessarily Hillary's fault, she was Sec of State for part of the turmoil. That will be used against her in the campaign if she is the nominee - you can bank on that.

There are days i believe we started the fire and there are other days i think we just threw gasoline on something that was already burning. Either way there have been obvious mistakes and im not sure who, if anyone, has the answer. Or what the answer even is at this point.

I do believe firmly that Hillary is the best option though. It's not about what she stands for or what she doesn't stand for. It's about her experience and her ability to get things done. That the Clinton's may or may not have blood on their hands is not even an issue with me either. Getting the job done is. And being stronger and better than the alternative is.

Let's just face facts, the potential field of GOP candidates look awful on just about everything. Some of that may change but none of them have my vote. Even the "good ones" will be stuck pandering to the whacky side of the GOP to get the tea people vote. For every reasonable republican in this country there's probably one nut out there who thinks Palin, Cruz, Santorum, Trump, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, etc. would make a great president.

So yeah, Hillary, you had me at "what difference does it make!"
 
Hillary is rapidly approaching the stage where she can make quips about not using her opponent's youth and inexperience against him. Strange to think of baby boomers that way, but she'll be the same age as Reagan (was) by 2017.
 
On the GOP side the big litmus test issue is that of immigration. There is a large portion on the GOP that wants nothing to do with pathways, amnesty, or more high tech visas.

Bush is for it satisfying the Chamber of Commerce crowd. Walker could very well be the front-runner if he is clean on this issue. But recently have a closed door COC speech in Arizona which seemed to leave hints of a pro amnesty lean.

The only candidate who has a clean 'hoo-ha' when it comes to Immigration is Cruz. Every other candidate has had conflicting statements before. I'm not a cheerleader for anybody, but this distinction could put Cruz above the scrum of conservative wing nominees.

I'm just a conservative observer. It will be a fascinating year ahead.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Oregoropa said:
Hillary is sinking because of email situation. Stinks to high heaven. O malley and Warren can def challenge her


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Click to expand...

Not exactly sinking

Poll: Who would Americans consider voting for in 2016? - CBS News

The Democrats

Revelations about Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state have done little to change her commanding lead as the potential candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2016. 81 percent would consider voting for her - the same percentage as last month.
Click to expand...
 
I gotta say, Rand Paul seems very interesting as a candidate. Dr. Ben Carson might have some pretty good policies up his sleeve too, so it's hard to say who I would lean towards.

As for Hillary, I pretty much lost respect for her after the Benghazi issue. The whole e-mail thing really doesn't help either.
 
99ledzeppelins said:
I gotta say, Rand Paul seems very interesting as a candidate. Dr. Ben Carson might have some pretty good policies up his sleeve too, so it's hard to say who I would lean towards.

As for Hillary, I pretty much lost respect for her after the Benghazi issue. The whole e-mail thing really doesn't help either.
Click to expand...



What policies does Ben Cardin have that you admire and what do you understand to be the Benghazi issue that lead to your loss of respect for Hillary?
 
99ledzeppelins said:
I gotta say, Rand Paul seems very interesting as a candidate. Dr. Ben Carson might have some pretty good policies up his sleeve too, so it's hard to say who I would lean towards.

As for Hillary, I pretty much lost respect for her after the Benghazi issue. The whole e-mail thing really doesn't help either.
Click to expand...


I'm confused, why are you finding homophobes to be interesting candidates?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I despise Hillary (not surprisingly) but I'm constantly amused at how often conservatives bring up Benghazi.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
The Way-Too-Early 2016 Speculation/Discussion Thread
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
LuckyNumber7
LuckyNumber7
JCOSTER
From Fez to Dublin
Replies
6
Views
2K
blm
blm
Party Boy
With a shout - Celebrating U2 - The Hurst Review
Replies
0
Views
1K
Party Boy
Party Boy
Irishteen
NLOTH Album Reviews Pt 3
31 32 33
Replies
977
Views
77K
cjboog
cjboog
phanan
  • Locked
  • Poll
Desert Island IV Album Game: Round 1, Match 8
Replies
25
Views
1K
phanan
phanan

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom