2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Black Swan · 10-10-2014 11:10am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ted Cruz is, academically, a different story as he was never a Canadian citizen AFAIK.

Ted Cruz currently has Canadian citizenship. He also has USA citizenship, giving him dual status. Cruz says he will renounce his Canadian citizenship, but it is problematic if he is qualified to run for US president given that he was born in Canada and not USA.

Amerika · 10-10-2014 11:33am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's still legally ambiguous what "naturally-born citizen" means - had John McCain won, I'd say there would have needed to be a Constitutional amendment as it's clear that he was not naturally born (rather made retrospectively a citizen, having been born a citizen of Panama); Ted Cruz is, academically, a different story as he was never a Canadian citizen AFAIK.

Although some day the issue of eligibility to be president will need to be resolved as the law is ambiguous, I don't believe it would have been an issue with John McCain. In the 2008 presidential race, the topic of McCain's eligibility became a hot issue. So much so that the Senate took action on the matter and approved a non-binding resolution declaring McCain eligible to be president. They stated "There is no evidence of the intention of the framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's president." And though their resolution has no legal effect it would be highly doubtful the issue would have progressed against McCain as congress had already preemptively made their decree on the matter.

(Odd though that the question of McCain's eligibility was legitimate, and the question of Obama's eligibility was taboo... but I digress.)

Black Swan · 10-10-2014 11:42am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'd say there would have needed to be a Constitutional amendment

It takes a 2/3rds favourable vote in BOTH the US House and US Senate to propose an amendment to the US Constitution, and if such a proposal passed in the US Congress, then it would have to be favourably ratified by 38 minimum of the 50 states to become an amendment to the US Constitution. This is an extraordinarily difficult thing to accomplish, and I seriously doubt that it would get out of committee, much less get proposed on both floors just to benefit one man that would like to run for president in 2016.

Furthermore, Ted Cruz not only has Democrat opponents in both houses, but also rival Republican competitors for the 2016 presidency, so the likelihood that this would happen is almost zip.

FreudianSlippers · 10-10-2014 2:33pm

Black Swan wrote: »

It takes a 2/3rds favourable vote in BOTH the US House and US Senate to propose an amendment to the US Constitution, and if such a proposal passed in the US Congress, then it would have to be favourably ratified by 38 minimum of the 50 states to become an amendment to the US Constitution. This is an extraordinarily difficult thing to accomplish, and I seriously doubt that it would get out of committee, much less get proposed on both floors just to benefit one man that would like to run for president in 2016.

Furthermore, Ted Cruz not only has Democrat opponents in both houses, but also rival Republican competitors for the 2016 presidency, so the likelihood that this would happen is almost zip.

Yeah, no great revelations there. Only alternative is a supreme court ruling on the definition of "naturally-born citizen" then, which it seems they almost purposely avoided in the most recent case law.

Unless someone has an alternative legally sound proposal it seems an odd issue to resolve.

Brian? · 10-10-2014 4:30pm

Amerika wrote: »

(Odd though that the question of McCain's eligibility was legitimate, and the question of Obama's eligibility was taboo... but I digress.)

Obama's eligibility was NOT taboo. It was proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he was born in the USA. There were no questions to be answered, except to answer a smear campaign based on a conspiracy theory.

That's a hell of a lot different that someone actually being born outside the US like Cruz.

FreudianSlippers · 10-10-2014 4:45pm

The problem for right-wing republicans who adopt a "framers of the constitution" stance on things is that it is exceptionally difficult to address the natural-born citizen issue from the "framers" perspective.

The main issue being that those eligible to be citizens may not have been born to citizen parents, nor were they necessarily born in the US (at the time). Therefore, the view was likely to be (and I certainly wouldn't be one that believes we can know exactly what was intended) that "natural-born" was someone born in the US. That, of course, creates issues with people born in the US but not to citizen parents as well as those born abroad to citizen parents.

I don't think there is a "simple" fix to the problem, as any simple fix would seem to have unintended consequences in one way or another. Short of a constitutional amendment, I fail to see how the issue can be solved without opening a significant number of consequences both legally and logistically.

Black Swan · 11-10-2014 2:04am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Short of a constitutional amendment, I fail to see how the issue can be solved without opening a significant number of consequences both legally and logistically.

Ted Cruz was born 22 December 1970, Calgary, Canada, has a Canadian birth certificate, and not born in a US territorial possession or US military base outside the 50 states (including DC). After birth, he lived in Canada for about 4 years, before immigrating to the US. Cruz now acknowledges his Canadian citizenship, but says he will renounce it, in favour of his US citizenship.

I seriously doubt that 2/3rds of both houses of the US Congress, as well as 38 of the 50 states will vote for an amendment to the US Constitution just to allow Ted Cruz to run for the presidency in 2016. Furthermore, I doubt that all the legal amendment requirements could be satisfied in time for the November 2016 elections, so some other method will have to be used if he is to be qualified to run. Perhaps US Supreme Court ruling that reinterprets the existing constitution, or a non-binding (political nonsense "magic") resolution by the US Congress to allow him to run.

FreudianSlippers · 12-10-2014 10:47am

Black Swan wrote: »

Ted Cruz was born 22 December 1970, Calgary, Canada, has a Canadian birth certificate, and not born in a US territorial possession or US military base outside the 50 states (including DC). After birth, he lived in Canada for about 4 years, before immigrating to the US. Cruz now acknowledges his Canadian citizenship, but says he will renounce it, in favour of his US citizenship.

I seriously doubt that 2/3rds of both houses of the US Congress, as well as 38 of the 50 states will vote for an amendment to the US Constitution just to allow Ted Cruz to run for the presidency in 2016. Furthermore, I doubt that all the legal amendment requirements could be satisfied in time for the November 2016 elections, so some other method will have to be used if he is to be qualified to run. Perhaps US Supreme Court ruling that reinterprets the existing constitution, or a non-binding (political nonsense "magic") resolution by the US Congress to allow him to run.

Are you suggesting that I'm saying anything to the alternative?

Black Swan · 13-10-2014 4:03am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Are you suggesting that I'm saying anything to the alternative?

I am only addressing that a Constitutional amendment for those running in the November 2016 presidential elections is a very unlikely alternative, especially for Canadian born Ted Cruz. If that's your position too, then we are in agreement.

FreudianSlippers · 13-10-2014 10:43am

Black Swan wrote: »

I am only addressing that a Constitutional amendment for those running in the November 2016 presidential elections is a very unlikely alternative, especially for Canadian born Ted Cruz. If that's your position too, then we are in agreement.

I'm going a step further and saying that I don't see how it can happen at all in the foreseeable future due to the political bag-of-worms that such an amendment would have.

Amerika · 13-10-2014 3:34pm

Does anyone honestly think Ted Cruz has a chance in hell of winning the general election for president, regardless of where he was born?

A recent Iowa Des Moines Register poll of likely voters is rather interesting. Democrats have won Iowa in 4 of the last 5 presidential elections.

The poll puts Hillary Clinton (43%) behind Mitt Romney (45%) in a hypothetical presidential contest in Iowa.

In a head to head match, Paul Ryan loses to Clinton by 1 percentage point, Rand Paul loses by 3 points, Chis Christie loses by 5 points, and Jeb Bush loses by 7 points to her.

Although polls should be taken with a grain of salt, it does give one some insight into how people feel, and a gauge of whom the GOP’s best contenders will be for their primary.

FreudianSlippers · 13-10-2014 3:42pm

Oh no, he doesn't have a chance in hell. I also am not sure that whether, even if Romney is the best contender to go up against Clinton, if the GOP or the electorate as a whole have the stomach for another Romney run.

This is going to be the most interesting GOP primary season IMO, because we will see whether the traditional Republicans are going to fight for their party or allow the more fundamental "tea party" types to continue their strangle-hold on the party.

Black Swan · 14-10-2014 1:46am

Amerika wrote: »

The poll puts Hillary Clinton (43%) behind Mitt Romney (45%) in a hypothetical presidential contest in Iowa.

At last count there were 538 EC votes. It takes 270 ECs to win the presidency, and Iowa has only 6 EC votes. Just because Iowa voted 5 out of 6 past elections Democratic is a descriptive statistic, not inferential, consequently you cannot statistically explain or predict the 2016 presidential election based upon Iowa percentages. Furthermore, the confidence interval of plus or minus 2 percent or more eats up the difference in such polls. Today's Iowa straw poll giving a Romney win over H Clinton by 2 percent is meaningless.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I also am not sure that whether, even if Romney is the best contender to go up against Clinton, if the GOP or the electorate as a whole have the stomach for another Romney run.

Mitt Romney and his supporters are reminiscing about (Republican) Richard Nixon's 2nd run win, after having lost the 1st. That may be part of the reason why Romney supporters tend to focus on Nixon's accomplishments and forget his forced resignation and immediate Ford presidential pardon for all crimes he committed or may have committed while president.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is going to be the most interesting GOP primary season IMO, because we will see whether the traditional Republicans are going to fight for their party or allow the more fundamental "tea party" types to continue their strangle-hold on the party.

I think there will eventually be a Hegelian-like synthesis between the GOP and its Tea Party faction, but not in time for this election. Continued infighting between Republicans benefits the Democrats in the 2016 presidential election.

Amerika · 14-10-2014 3:14pm

Black Swan wrote: »

At last count there were 538 EC votes. It takes 270 ECs to win the presidency, and Iowa has only 6 EC votes. Just because Iowa voted 5 out of 6 past elections Democratic is a descriptive statistic, not inferential, consequently you cannot statistically explain or predict the 2016 presidential election based upon Iowa percentages. Furthermore, the confidence interval of plus or minus 2 percent or more eats up the difference in such polls. Today's Iowa straw poll giving a Romney win over H Clinton by 2 percent is meaningless.

Bullcrap that the straw poll giving Romney a win over H Clinton is meaningless. Candidates have dropped out of the race with a bad showing in Iowa before. Others have shot to the front of the class because of it. If it was meaningless candidates wouldn't spend so much time there.

Clinton is pretty much the guaranteed (D) candidate, otherwise O’Malley, Biden and Warren would be getting more than the occasional token “Well, I guess we should report on some other candidates... wink wink.” Romney has claimed he isn’t even running this time, and he beats her in the poll. I think Hillary is going to have a tough time appearing to be anything more than a third term for Barack Obama to Middle America. And IMO Iowa sorta proves it.

Fallschirmjager · 17-10-2014 7:07pm

Reading this has actually made me depressed.....we'll sort of for a while

Romney, Clinton, bush...

Jesus h Christ there is 300 odd million of ye and this is all ye can come up with...

Am I the only one finding that a bit depressing..?

I mean it freaking depressing here when that happens with 4 million of us in Ireland

Now outing my outrageous libertarian view...rand Paul? (Although to be fair I guess you could lob him into the same list as above) ...does he have a hope or not?

Now I have long given up hope with politicians except the guarantee of heartbreak and soul destroying About turns...but thoughts on a post it please...

Black Swan · 18-10-2014 3:16am

Amerika wrote: »

Bullcrap that the straw poll giving Romney a win over H Clinton is meaningless... And IMO Iowa sorta proves it.

This was an Iowa poll taken more than 2 years before the November 2016 presidential elections, and it was a single poll (cross-sectional) and not a timely tracking poll taken several times leading to the election (not longitudinal). The poll was not a census, rather a sample subject to random variability and error when attempting to estimate population parameters from sample statistics. For example, the 2 percent lead in a single poll between Romney and H Clinton would easily fall within the confidence interval (well within the margin of error). Lastly, there is no "proves it." Scientific measurement, especially that based upon polling, only suggests not proves. All of these considerations making the poll meaningless both statistically and practically. Today this Iowa poll was both media and political spin, no more.

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

Romney, Clinton, bush...

Jesus h Christ there is 300 odd million of ye and this is all ye can come up with...

You would think that the 310+ million population US would have many more qualified candidates to pick from than the same old names.

AbusesToilets · 18-10-2014 5:44pm

Yes, but it's not 310m making the choice, it's the few hundred corporate sponsors deciding who gets the funding to pursue electoral success.

Hold the Cheez Whiz · 18-10-2014 7:19pm

Now Santorum is hinting at another run.

My god. Is this really the best we can do?

Then again, I don't see why any sane person would want to run for office in the U.S., given the immaturity of voters, the insane cable news media hysteria, and the intrusion into personal life. I guess we are getting the politicians (and government) we deserve.

eire4 · 18-10-2014 11:16pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Yes, but it's not 310m making the choice, it's the few hundred corporate sponsors deciding who gets the funding to pursue electoral success.

Not just them but also a two party cartel that does everything it can to strangle any other political voices emerging as viable alternatives in the US.
It is my opinion the US needs to go for a form of PR and move away from the current first past the post sytem which is patently broken and not serving the needs of the majority of Americans.

Black Swan · 19-10-2014 3:58am

eire4 wrote: »

Not just them but also a two party cartel that does everything it can to strangle any other political voices emerging as viable alternatives in the US.

I agree with you, and USA co-founding father John Adams:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties (i.e., Democrats and Republicans), each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

eire4 · 19-10-2014 5:47pm

Black Swan wrote: »

I agree with you, and USA co-founding father John Adams:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties (i.e., Democrats and Republicans), each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

A good find. Kind of like Eisenhower warming against the military industrial complex being allowed to grow too powerful as we have seen all to sadly come to pass in recent times.

This is what bothers me most about the current political situation. The system is so patently broken and it is flat out scary when you look at some of those who may run in 2016.

Black Swan · 20-10-2014 8:02am

eire4 wrote: »

This is what bothers me most about the current political situation. The system is so patently broken and it is flat out scary when you look at some of those who may run in 2016.

Sarah Palin is one of the potential candidates listed in the GOP 2016 Presidential Straw Poll that appeared in this thread's OP. She was not qualified to run as John McCain's Vice President in 2008, and I believe her to be less qualified today.

I was surprised that the GOP had nominated someone with so little experience as their 2008 VP candidate. Only 8 years as mayor of tiny city Wasilla, Alaska (6,300 residents), one year as oil and gas commissioner (which she quit), and served only half her 1st term as Alaska's governor before quitting mid-2009. She has not held public office since, so how is she better qualified today to run for the highest office in the nation?

Brian? · 20-10-2014 2:30pm

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

Now Santorum is hinting at another run.

My god. Is this really the best we can do?

Then again, I don't see why any sane person would want to run for office in the U.S., given the immaturity of voters, the insane cable news media hysteria, and the intrusion into personal life. I guess we are getting the politicians (and government) we deserve.

The comments under that article are hilarious. One lady seems determined to anoint Santorum as the next Ronald Reagan, despite the fact that he's bat **** crazy.

Brian? · 20-10-2014 2:33pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Sarah Palin is one of the potential candidates listed in the GOP 2016 Presidential Straw Poll that appeared in this thread's OP. She was not qualified to run as John McCain's Vice President in 2008, and I believe her to be less qualified today.

I was surprised that the GOP had nominated someone with so little experience as their 2008 VP candidate. Only 8 years as mayor of tiny city Wasilla, Alaska (6,300 residents), one year as oil and gas commissioner (which she quit), and served only half her 1st term as Alaska's governor before quitting mid-2009. She has not held public office since, so how is she better qualified today to run for the highest office in the nation?

You're being an east coast liberal elitist. She understands real Americans and understands the needs and aspirations of real America in a way that a bleeding heart college educated snob never will. She doesn't need qualifications or intelligence, she has down home good sense.

Pity she's an idiot. As much as I dislike most GOP candidates, she's the only one I think is genuinely stupid. Cunning, yes, but an idiot.

eire4 · 20-10-2014 6:43pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Sarah Palin is one of the potential candidates listed in the GOP 2016 Presidential Straw Poll that appeared in this thread's OP. She was not qualified to run as John McCain's Vice President in 2008, and I believe her to be less qualified today.

I was surprised that the GOP had nominated someone with so little experience as their 2008 VP candidate. Only 8 years as mayor of tiny city Wasilla, Alaska (6,300 residents), one year as oil and gas commissioner (which she quit), and served only half her 1st term as Alaska's governor before quitting mid-2009. She has not held public office since, so how is she better qualified today to run for the highest office in the nation?

She definitely fits the profile for me of how scary and broken the US political system is.

Black Swan · 21-10-2014 6:27am

Out of the 32 potential candidates listed in the GOP 2016 Straw Poll (link) in the OP thread, my guess today (not yesterday or tomorrow

) of those that will run during the Republican primary race for the GOP 2016 nomination are listed below. Comments are my opinion. Of those original 32, or these listed below, whom do you think will actually run (if asked to guess today)? Pick one or more, and comment.

Best guess 2016 GOP primary runners:

Chris Christie (moderate; also appeals to Independents & cross-overs)
New Jersey Governor
Rand Paul (too right wing for Independents & cross-overs; if one Paul runs, the other won't)
Kentucky Senator
Ron Paul (too right wing for Independents & cross-overs; if one Paul runs, the other won't)
Former Texas Congressman
Paul Ryan (VP candidate lost w/Romney 2012)
Wisconsin Congressman

These 5 (below) may send up test balloons, but I do not think they will run in 2016:

Jeb Bush (brother GW association with Great Recession and 2 longest wars)
Former Florida Governor
Ted Cruz (Born Canadian citizen qualification controversy)
Texas Senator
Newt Gingrich (made too many enemies on both sides US House)
Former House Speaker
Rick Perry (indicted on felony charges 2014)
Texas Governor
Rick Santorum (stale: out-of-office 8 years)
Former Pennsylvania Senator

Not on the original 32 GOP Straw Poll list, but there is a lot of chatter about getting him to rerun 2016 (like Nixon):

Mitt Romney (lost against Obama 2012)
Former Massachusetts Governor

Amerika · 21-10-2014 1:27pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Out of the 32 potential candidates listed in the GOP 2016 Straw Poll (link) in the OP thread, my guess today (not yesterday or tomorrow ) of those that will run during the Republican primary race for the GOP 2016 nomination are listed below. Comments are my opinion. Of those original 32, or these listed below, whom do you think will actually run (if asked to guess today)? Pick one or more, and comment.

Best guess 2016 GOP primary runners:
Chris Christie (moderate; also appeals to Independents & cross-overs)
New Jersey Governor

Rand Paul (too right wing for Independents & cross-overs; if one Paul runs, the other won't)
Kentucky Senator

Ron Paul (too right wing for Independents & cross-overs; if one Paul runs, the other won't)
Former Texas Congressman

Paul Ryan (VP candidate lost w/Romney 2012)
Wisconsin Congressman

These 5 (below) may send up test balloons, but I do not think they will run in 2016:
Jeb Bush (brother GW association with Great Recession and 2 longest wars)
Former Florida Governor

Ted Cruz (Born Canadian citizen qualification controversy)
Texas Senator

Newt Gingrich (made too many enemies on both sides US House)
Former House Speaker

Rick Perry (indicted on felony charges 2014)
Texas Governor

Rick Santorum (stale: out-of-office 8 years)
Former Pennsylvania Senator

Not on the original 32 GOP Straw Poll list, but there is a lot of chatter about getting him to rerun 2016 (like Nixon):

Mitt Romney (lost against Obama 2012)
Former Massachusetts Governor

Odd poll IMO. Seems little more than a name recognition popularity contest.

And why in the world wouldn’t Mitt Romney be on the poll? I believe he’s the current frontrunner in GOP circles.

(I’m going to see Ben Carson speak in December. I like what I’ve heard from him so far, and think he’d make a good political VP choice.)

Hold the Cheez Whiz · 21-10-2014 3:14pm

Amerika wrote: »

Odd poll IMO. Seems little more than a name recognition popularity contest.

And why in the world wouldn’t Mitt Romney be on the poll? I believe he’s the current frontrunner in GOP circles.

(I’m going to see Ben Carson speak in December. I like what I’ve heard from him so far, and think he’d make a good political VP choice.)

Ben Carson seems like the Herman Cain of the 2016 cycle.

Amerika · 21-10-2014 3:57pm

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

Ben Carson seems like the Herman Cain of the 2016 cycle.

Why, because they’re both black? If someone from the GOP made a comment like that I think we know what we’d accuse them of.

Hold the Cheez Whiz · 21-10-2014 6:13pm

Amerika wrote: »

Why, because they’re both black? If someone from the GOP made a comment like that I think we know what we’d accuse them of.

Of bei g able to think logically and draw a comparison? ;-)

What I meant was that they are both people who were successful outside of politics, which makes them seem to think that they are experts on everything, even though when pressed they have very little to say outside of jingoistic platitudes or pub rants. Essentially they get on the radar by preaching to the choir, which speaks more to their qualification to be pundits on cable 'news' shows than to be president. Perhaps they should try winning a few state or even local elections first and spending some time outside of the right wing echo chamber before running for president.