2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Black Swan · 01-10-2014 3:40am #1

It would appear that Hilliary Clinton will be the leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination for 2016, but the potential Republican candidates are so many it's beginning to look like a horse race. As soon as the November 2014 mid-terms are over the candidates will start officially declaring and the race will begin.

Ran across a GOP 2016 Presidential Straw Poll that had 32 possible candidates, which seemed too many to me.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is a moderate, has been successfully fundraising, and if he can overcome Bridgegate, may be one of the GOP front runners. He will definitely run in 2016.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is a conservative, has the well known Bush family name with 2 former US presidents, but also the GW Bush Great Recessionary image problem (as well as having launched the 2 longest wars in US history). He may run, or he may sit this one out.

I cannot believe that this straw poll includes Sarah Palin, former half-term resigned Governor of Alaska and 2008 VP candidate. She now has her own cable show, and seems to draw a lot of Tea Party voters when she makes public appearances. I think she will drop hints that she's running, but at the last minute not appear.

The only straw poll candidate that looks interesting to me is South Dakota Senator John Thune. He defeated former Senator Tom Daschle (Democrat), who had been both minority and majority party whip in the US Senate. He is a conservative, and has a reputation for being honest (which may be a rare quality in today's Senate). According to the Huff Post he is not running in 2016.

Who do you think will declare presidential candidacy in 2016, for either the Republicans or Democrats? And if you be bold (or psychic), who do you think will win and why?

There have been several mod warnings on this thread about the quality of posting. This will be the final one. Posts which are newsdumps, smileys and pithy one liners will be deleted and their authors may face further mod action.

Thanks,
The Politics mods.

Hold the Cheez Whiz · 01-10-2014 4:03am

I just read an article today on how Jim Webb, the former senator from Virginia, is putting out feelers to run. It seems like most people are resigning themselves to Hillary Clinton though, even among people who like Webb.

That said, the lack of excitement about her campaign feels like 2006 all over again. I think I'd vote for an (EXTREMELY unlikely) Webb/Warren ticket over Clinton/anybody at this point. Her hawkishness, in particular, is a huge turnoff, and she is way too close to Wall Street for my liking.

Amerika · 01-10-2014 1:27pm

What does Hillary Clinton have to offer besides being a third term for Barack Obama? She will simply continue his policies IMO. She approves of Obamacare, supports cap and trade, and the only deficit spending cuts she seems to favor is in defense. But if she runs, it seems inevitable the American people will once again cast their vote with their hearts instead of their heads. Lovely bunch of coconuts.

A more interesting scenario is what will the Democrats do if Clinton doesn’t run. Elizabeth Warren is probably the most defeatable of the list of Democratic characters in a general election. And no others seem to be able to capture national attention.

I wouldn’t count out Mitt Romney making another run again in 2016 on the GOP side. He would probably be the most viable opposing candidate against Hillary if she continues to come off as a severely flawed leader without any real ideas for moving the country forward. And I don't think it will serve her well to run on the current Democratic election strategy that the GOP is waging a war on women, the GOP hates minorities, and that the Koch Brothers are to blame for all the troubles in the world. Of course they could always run with a Blame GW Bush For Everything 2.0 resurrection.

Hold the Cheez Whiz · 01-10-2014 1:59pm

Amerika wrote: »

What does Hillary Clinton have to offer besides being a third term for Barack Obama? She will simply continue his policies IMO. She approves of Obamacare, supports cap and trade, and the only deficit spending cuts she seems to favor is in defense. But if she runs, it seems inevitable the American people will once again cast their vote with their hearts instead of their heads. Lovely bunch of coconuts.

A more interesting scenario is what will the Democrats do if Clinton doesn’t run. Elizabeth Warren is probably the most defeatable of the list of Democratic characters in a general election. And no others seem to be able to capture national attention.

I wouldn’t count out Mitt Romney making another run again in 2016 on the GOP side. He would probably be the most viable opposing candidate against Hillary if she continues to come off as a severely flawed leader without any real ideas for moving the country forward. And I don't think it will serve her well to run on the current Democratic election strategy that the GOP is waging a war on women, the GOP hates minorities, and that the Koch Brothers are to blame for all the troubles in the world. Of course they could always run with a Blame GW Bush For Everything 2.0 resurrection.

Mitt is a 2-time loser that the GOP base loathed until he was at the top of the ticket. And what grand ideas does he have for moving the country forward? Frankly, I haven't heard anyone, Dem or Republican, say anything remotely interesting so far, which will make it extremely easy for a charismatic candidate to once again swoop in and take all of the political oxygen (and their party's base) with them.

Manach · 01-10-2014 2:16pm

On the Democratic side, from left of Clinton would Elizabeth Warren be a contender in the initial hustings? She does have a book out that sets out her political stall (with the associated publicity tour) and seems to be more in line with the more progressive wing than Clinton.

Amerika · 01-10-2014 3:05pm

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

Mitt is a 2-time loser that the GOP base loathed until he was at the top of the ticket. And what grand ideas does he have for moving the country forward? Frankly, I haven't heard anyone, Dem or Republican, say anything remotely interesting so far, which will make it extremely easy for a charismatic candidate to once again swoop in and take all of the political oxygen (and their party's base) with them.

If Romney ran and won... Unlike Obama and Hillary Clinton, he's a pragmatist and would govern by attempting to fix problems, not to advance an ideology.

He would work to simply the tax code, that would help to unleash the $1 Trillion companies are hoarding because of uncertainty, which would create jobs. He’d work on getting subsidies to boost employment such as a payroll-tax cuts, incentives for purchases of durable goods like a temporary sales-tax rebate. He’d tackle the litany of government regulations that is making doing business quite difficult in America. He’d work on getting the deficit down and reduce deficit spending seemingly now used to back green energy, education jobs, union jobs, ever-growing and expanding welfare, and government pensions. And he’d work to expand viable domestic energy. Those are just for starters. (my opinion)

And he's proven as governor of Massachusetts that he can work with a legislature that was 87% Democrats to get things done.

And right back at you... What would Webb, Warren or Hillary Clinton do to warrant your vote?

Hold the Cheez Whiz · 01-10-2014 3:33pm

Amerika wrote: »

If Romney ran and won... Unlike Obama and Hillary Clinton, he's a pragmatist and would govern by attempting to fix problems, not to advance an ideology.

He would work to simply the tax code, that would help to unleash the $1 Trillion companies are hoarding because of uncertainty, which would create jobs. He’d work on getting subsidies to boost employment such as a payroll-tax cuts, incentives for purchases of durable goods like a temporary sales-tax rebate. He’d tackle the litany of government regulations that is making doing business quite difficult in America. He’d work on getting the deficit down and reduce deficit spending seemingly now used to back green energy, education jobs, union jobs, ever-growing and expanding welfare, and government pensions. And he’d work to expand viable domestic energy. Those are just for starters. (my opinion)

And he's proven as governor of Massachusetts that he can work with a legislature that was 87% Democrats to get things done.

And right back at you... What would Webb, Warren or Hillary Clinton do to warrant your vote?

Is there actually any empirical evidence that payroll tax cuts have an appreciable effect on employment?

Will he actually address one of the key causes of deficit spending in the US: our overextension of the military? Clean energy technology is a drop in the bucket compared to defense, social security, and Medicare.

What do you call 'viable' domestic energy: the fracking that is increasingly linked to seismic activity and compromised water supplies?

And let's not even speak of Romney's record in Massachusetts, as he has been running away from it for the last decade. He worked with Dems because he didn't have a choice...speaking of choice, he was pro-choice when he ran then, and his health care plan was the model of Obamacare. He wouldn't even say the word 'Massachusetts' (or Mormon) in the presidential debates.

Finally, only an ideologue would not consider Clinton a pragmatist...she is the ultimate pragmatist, which is why the left wing of her party isn't crazy about her. Clinton and Romney have a similar problem - both would do or say just about anything to be elected president, so apart from a few key issues (financial regulation for Romney; women's issues for Clinton), they tend to blow in the wind politically.

Hold the Cheez Whiz · 01-10-2014 3:48pm

Amerika wrote: »

And right back at you... What would Webb, Warren or Hillary Clinton do to warrant your vote?

- Push to re-instate Glass-Steagall (Warren)
- Stop seeing every crisis as a nail that requires the hammer of the US military (Webb)
- Supports ending federal subsidies for oil and gas exploration (Webb)
- Supports ending stupid travel ban to Cuba (Webb)
- Pro-choice (both)
- Banking regulation (Warren)

But just to clarify, I like Webb & Warren as an alternative to Hillary - I think some of Webb's positions are iffy, and I think Warren should stay in the Senate for now. That said, despite the fact that I'm not a fan of Clinton's foreign policy or position vis-a-vis the financial sector, and I wish that the Clintons would just retire altogether from politics already, I would vote for her in a general election because the modern GOP is bats-hit crazy.

Amerika · 01-10-2014 4:47pm

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

... I would vote for her in a general election because the modern GOP is bats-hit crazy.

Hmmm... What does that then make Democrats?

Odds seem to indicate the GOP will take control of the Senate next month. Republicans need to pick up six seats to win the Senate. I think the GOP is now favored to win the Democratic held seats in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia, although some are very close. And it looks like Iowa and Colorado might be shifting to the GOP candidates. North Carolina is a problem for the Reps, and the Kansas Independent is giving the Republican fits (and I think would caucus with the Dems if he wins).

Might be food for thought for a Democrat thinking about running for president in 2016 if both the House and Senate are controlled by the GOP.

eire4 · 01-10-2014 7:30pm

To my mind politics in the US really is in a very sorry state. The 2 party monopoly of the Democrats and Republicans is not serving America well. A large number of seats in congress are not really up for grabs as the districts have been gerrymandered. The new money is speech supreme court decisions have made things even worse in my opinion as well. Washington politicans in general seem to be more about representing the clients who pay to get them elected then the actual people they technically represent.
I think it would be great if the US moved toward some form of PR for elections.

BoJack Horseman · 01-10-2014 8:03pm

If I was a GOP voter I would go for Mitt.

I know he is a 2-time loser.
But I couldn't give a poop about that.
If I thought a candidate was the better candidate I'd continue voting for them.

I genuinely think he's a good man who would do a good job.
He's smart, articulate & moderate.

Either Mitt or Hill-dog, America could do worse.

Brian? · 01-10-2014 9:02pm

I think the chances of Romney getting the nomination as so close to zero it's not worth considering.

For the GOP, I still think it will be Jeb Bush. Are people still hitching their wagon to Rand Paul?

For the Dems, I think we could see a Biden/Webb ticket.

Hold the Cheez Whiz · 01-10-2014 9:12pm

Brian? wrote: »

I think the chances of Romney getting the nomination as so close to zero it's not worth considering.

For the GOP, I still think it will be Jeb Bush. Are people still hitching their wagon to Rand Paul?

For the Dems, I think we could see a Biden/Webb ticket.

A recent poll has Clinton over Bush in Florida. !!!

I don't think that Jeb Bush will ever get out from under his family name. As a former Florida resident, he wasn't the worst governor the state ever had (although he benefited hugely from the construction-led economic boom that ended just as he left office). That said, his interference in the Terri Schiavo case was grotesque - limited government, my arse.

Hold the Cheez Whiz · 01-10-2014 9:14pm

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm... What does that then make Democrats?

Complicit idiots too afraid of their own shadow and right-wing pundits and too in hock to corporate interests? Sadly, in my view, they are still the lesser of two evils.

Black Swan · 02-10-2014 3:02am

Amerika wrote: »

What does Hillary Clinton have to offer ...She approves of Obamacare...

I wouldn’t count out Mitt Romney making another run again in 2016 on the GOP side.

ObamaCare essentially copied RomneyCare, except that ObamaCare applied to the nation, and RomneyCare only affected the State of Massachusetts when Romney was Governor. I dislike both. Both plans force citizens to enroll in private-sector-for-profit corporate medical insurance plans, both punish their citizens if they don't enroll, and both are dysfunctional. Massachusetts may scrap RomneyCare.

In 2012 the voting rate was 63.7 percent for women, compared to 59.7 for men. I would like to see more qualified women in USA government, especially in the 3 branches of Fed government, but I find Hillary Clinton (Democrat) a complete bore, and Sarah Palin (Republican) was an embarrassment. Is it going to take a 100 years or more for the strategic shift in USA college and university enrollments (with more women than men enrolling and graduating now) before a few more of them become qualified and experienced to hold high office in USA?

sin_city · 02-10-2014 1:59pm

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

Complicit idiots too afraid of their own shadow and right-wing pundits and too in hock to corporate interests? Sadly, in my view, they are still the lesser of two evils.

Right wing....Obama has bombed 7 countries.....he's a good socialist alright...as long as you're a big banker

Amerika · 02-10-2014 5:00pm

Black Swan wrote: »

ObamaCare essentially copied RomneyCare, except that ObamaCare applied to the nation, and RomneyCare only affected the State of Massachusetts when Romney was Governor. I dislike both. Both plans force citizens to enroll in private-sector-for-profit corporate medical insurance plans, both punish their citizens if they don't enroll, and both are dysfunctional. Massachusetts may scrap RomneyCare.

In 2012 the voting rate was 63.7 percent for women, compared to 59.7 for men. I would like to see more qualified women in USA government, especially in the 3 branches of Fed government, but I find Hillary Clinton (Democrat) a complete bore, and Sarah Palin (Republican) was an embarrassment. Is it going to take a 100 years or more for the strategic shift in USA college and university enrollments (with more women than men enrolling and graduating now) before a few more of them become qualified and experienced to hold high office in USA?

Giving her a few more years executive experience, I could get behind a Governor Susana Martinez (R) run for the presidency next time around in 2020.

Amerika · 02-10-2014 5:14pm

Brian? wrote: »

I think the chances of Romney getting the nomination as so close to zero it's not worth considering.

For the GOP, I still think it will be Jeb Bush. Are people still hitching their wagon to Rand Paul?

For the Dems, I think we could see a Biden/Webb ticket.

Wrongamundo... As usual!

One of the major things to remember and part of the reason Romney might throw his hat back into the ring is the conservative reaction to this little media trial balloon about him running again we are experiencing. He’s getting a “he’s not my first choice but I learned to like him during the last campaign and would probably prefer him to Bush or Christie,” unlike the negative reaction he received from them in 2012, and I think Romney can live with that.

Jeb Bush and Rand Paul make good copy in the papers and bloviating from the pundits and bloggers, and that's about it. They just can't seem to generate any substantial interest.

Biden doesn't even appear on the radar screen, unless you're humming to the tune of "Radar Love" ('The radio's playing some forgotten song').

Amerika · 02-10-2014 5:16pm

eire4 wrote: »

To my mind politics in the US really is in a very sorry state. The 2 party monopoly of the Democrats and Republicans is not serving America well. A large number of seats in congress are not really up for grabs as the districts have been gerrymandered. The new money is speech supreme court decisions have made things even worse in my opinion as well. Washington politicans in general seem to be more about representing the clients who pay to get them elected then the actual people they technically represent.
I think it would be great if the US moved toward some form of PR for elections.

Well, its gotten us this far. :cool:

eire4 · 02-10-2014 7:52pm

Amerika wrote: »

Well, its gotten us this far. :cool:

This reply means what exactly? Your ok with the sorry state of politics in the US currently?

Amerika · 02-10-2014 9:07pm

eire4 wrote: »

This reply means what exactly? Your ok with the sorry state of politics in the US currently?

Yes I'm fine with it. It’s part of the reason why the US, in a little over 200 years, has become the beacon for the world; and has excelled in opportunity, might, compassion, innovation, technology and medicine... to list just a few.

Brian? · 02-10-2014 10:52pm

Amerika wrote: »

Wrongamundo... As usual!

One of the major things to remember and part of the reason Romney might throw his hat back into the ring is the conservative reaction to this little media trial balloon about him running again we are experiencing. He’s getting a “he’s not my first choice but I learned to like him during the last campaign and would probably prefer him to Bush or Christie,” unlike the negative reaction he received from them in 2012, and I think Romney can live with that.

We all know how much Americans love a loser, eh? And Romney is a 2 time loser. Hasn't a hope.

Jeb Bush and Rand Paul make good copy in the papers and bloviating from the pundits and bloggers, and that's about it. They just can't seem to generate any substantial interest.

I'd disagree, Jeb has generated plenty of interest by doing nothing. Saying and doing nothing has done enough to keep him in with a shout. A lot of people outside the US seem to think that the Bush name is negative for Jeb, that's not my experience when talking to moderate GOP voters. Small sample size admittedly.

Biden doesn't even appear on the radar screen, unless you're humming to the tune of "Radar Love" ('The radio's playing some forgotten song').

Biden is the current VP, he's on the radar screen no matter what. Discounting someone with the political nous of Biden is foolhardy at this point.

sin_city · 02-10-2014 11:54pm

Does anyone think Jeb can do as good as his brother?

Rand Paul has to do well here. He’s a pretty straight talker.

I understand why some people might not like his views but I don’t understand what people actually like in the other guys.

All I can think of is “full of Sh!t” when I hear them speak

Manach · 03-10-2014 12:14am

Brian? wrote: »

Biden is the current VP, he's on the radar screen no matter what. Discounting someone with the political nous of Biden is foolhardy at this point.

Read one book on him, The Unwinding. While not exactly flattering, he actually comes across as someone fairly grounded with a lot more political nous than suggested by the popular media and age or not has a burning ambition.

Hold the Cheez Whiz · 03-10-2014 12:47am

sin_city wrote: »

Does anyone think Jeb can do as good as his brother?

Rand Paul has to do well here. He’s a pretty straight talker.

I understand why some people might not like his views but I don’t understand what people actually like in the other guys.

All I can think of is “full of Sh!t” when I hear them speak

Erm, wasn't Sarah Palin initially popular for being a 'straight talker'? And didn't John McCain used to ride the "Straight Talk Express"? Granted, I had time for McCain before the whole Palin disaster, but you can talk as straight as you want and still be selling some nonsense!

sin_city · 03-10-2014 1:05am

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

Erm, wasn't Sarah Palin initially popular for being a 'straight talker'? And didn't John McCain used to ride the "Straight Talk Express"? Granted, I had time for McCain before the whole Palin disaster, but you can talk as straight as you want and still be selling some nonsense!

Rand Paul has always been against wars.

I put Palin as an idiot and Mc Cain in the "Full of Sh!t" section like most politicians

Hold the Cheez Whiz · 03-10-2014 1:20am

sin_city wrote: »

Rand Paul has always been against wars.

I put Palin as an idiot and Mc Cain in the "Full of Sh!t" section like most politicians

I think Paul is kind of hypocritical for calling on the government to end subsidies for renewable energy, but remaining silent on the massive government subsidies for oil and gas exploration...unless I'm missing something here (please point me in the right direction if so). I appreciate his position on civil liberties, but I am definitely not a fan of his position on reproductive choice. He also isn't against 'wars' per se, but rather against wars that are not declared by the Congress.

sin_city · 03-10-2014 2:27am

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

I think Paul is kind of hypocritical for calling on the government to end subsidies for renewable energy, but remaining silent on the massive government subsidies for oil and gas exploration

His opinion is that Renewable has not been proven itself. the oil companies make massive profits. How much profit did the solar sector make due to the subsidies it got?

Rand Paul sees it like this. He doesn't like the government wasting tax payers money. You can disagree for sure however he bases it on the ability to make a profit and avoid waste.

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

I appreciate his position on civil liberties, but I am definitely not a fan of his position on reproductive choice.

Of course you can disagree but do you think his opinion is based on someone buying him off into this opinion? What I mean is, compared to other politicians, do you think Rand Paul can be bought to change his mind?
I think there is more of a change of him changing his mind through debate than kickbacks.

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

He also isn't against 'wars' per se, but rather against wars that are not declared by the Congress.

Sorry, please remind me...when was the last declaration by Congress?

What is it you like so much about other candidates?

As I said, I get what people might dislike about Rand Paul in some areas but there is a lot to like.

I don't understand what there is to like about other "full of Sh!t" politicians who are the vast majority.

Hold the Cheez Whiz · 03-10-2014 2:45am

sin_city wrote: »

His opinion is that Renewable has not been proven itself. the oil companies make massive profits. How much profit did the solar sector make due to the subsidies it got?

Rand Paul sees it like this. He doesn't like the government wasting tax payers money. You can disagree for sure however he bases it on the ability to make a profit and avoid waste.

Um, the fact that oil and gas is hugely profitable is the point: why should they receive massive subsidies from the federal government for exploration?

Of course you can disagree but do you think his opinion is based on someone buying him off into this opinion? What I mean is, compared to other politicians, do you think Rand Paul can be bought to change his mind?
I think there is more of a change of him changing his mind through debate than kickbacks.

Like most politicians, his positions are pretty consistent with those of his top donors. The question is, which way does the causal arrow go? From your comments, you seem to think that the tail wags the dog - do you think that Paul is somehow exempt from that?

Sorry, please remind me...when was the last declaration by Congress?

What is it you like so much about other candidates?

As I said, I .get what people might dislike about Rand Paul in some areas but there is a lot to like.

I don't understand what there is to like about other "full of Sh!t" politicians who are the vast majority.

Perhaps I am too cynical to believe that Rand Paul is a magical unicorn in the Senate who is not just as beholden to the special interests of his state and key national constituencies as ever other Senator. I don't like Paul's social conservatism, environmental policies or (in my view, misguided) faith that the free market fixes everything (or is always preferable to the government). I think I've made it pretty clear that I'm not particularly crazy about any candidate, but there are some that are less intolerable than others.

FatherTed · 03-10-2014 3:00am

There will be a lot of talk and money spent between now and the election. We should just save ourselves the hassle and annoint Hillary now because she's going to win.

Hold the Cheez Whiz · 03-10-2014 3:31am

FatherTed wrote: »

There will be a lot of talk and money spent between now and the election. We should just save ourselves the hassle and annoint Hillary now because she's going to win.

Wasn't that what everyone was saying in 2006?

sin_city · 03-10-2014 4:07am

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

Um, the fact that oil and gas is hugely profitable is the point: why should they receive massive subsidies from the federal government for exploration?

I dunno. Maybe they pay lots of taxes. Maybe its seen as a good return. Rand Paul doesn’t like to see money go to waste and investment in solar didn’t produce much profit for Obama.

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

Like most politicians, his positions are pretty consistent with those of his top donors. The question is, which way does the causal arrow go? From your comments, you seem to think that the tail wags the dog - do you think that Paul is somehow exempt from that?

His Dad got lots of small contributions from individuals. I would guess that Rand also gets lots of these. Do you have a total of contributions under $200 for Rand Paul in comparison to others?

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

Perhaps I am too cynical to believe that Rand Paul is a magical unicorn in the Senate who is not just as beholden to the special interests of his state and key national constituencies as ever other Senator. I don't like Paul's social conservatism, environmental policies or (in my view, misguided) faith that the free market fixes everything (or is always preferable to the government). I think I've made it pretty clear that I'm not particularly crazy about any candidate, but there are some that are less intolerable than others.

The free market doesn’t fix everything. Then again we’ve never really had a completely free market.

Rand Paul will not fix the US. It is too far gone in my opinion but I’m sure he has some similarities to his Dad and Ron woke up many people to the fact that in general there is no difference between most Republicans and Democrats.

He’s simply the best option but he can’t fix the impending mess that is coming.

Black Swan · 03-10-2014 10:18am

Amerika wrote: »

Giving her a few more years executive experience, I could get behind a Governor Susana Martinez (R) run for the presidency next time around in 2020.

I'm uncertain at this point if she is a viable candidate for president. She was the "I'll be damned" speaker at the 2012 Republican Convention that got more applause than Mitt Romney. The 1st Latina Governor in the US (of the fastest growing US voter minority). But needs to distance herself from Sarah Palin, Karl Rove, Koch brothers, Tea Party Republican faction, and take a more independent stance, perhaps a conservative position just slightly right of middle. She appears to be ahead in a recent NM election poll with Martinez 50% vs Gary King (Democrat) 41%. If reelected, I doubt that she will be ready to take on Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Furthermore, I truly doubt that the GOP will run a female presidential candidate against Hillary Clinton in 2016, but perhaps a female VP. Their party is not ready to make such a bold move.

Strong right conservatives have little chance to swing enough independents, or get a sufficient number of Democrat cross-overs needed to win in 2016. You can't just win with registered Republicans. Now if there is a recessionary cycle that hits early in the 2016 election year, conservatives may have increased chances, but if the economy continues to gradually grow as it has since 2010, a more moderate position will probably draw more Independents and Dem cross-overs.

eire4 · 03-10-2014 11:03pm

Amerika wrote: »

Yes I'm fine with it. It’s part of the reason why the US, in a little over 200 years, has become the beacon for the world; and has excelled in opportunity, might, compassion, innovation, technology and medicine... to list just a few.

Ok I just wanted to make sure I had you right. Your saying your fine with the current state of US politics.

Personally I am not. As I said earlier I see a system that is broken. We have a 2 party monopoly. A large number of seats are gerrymandered by both parties in terms of the districting. While the supreme courts money is speech rulings have meant that the wealthy and powerful corporations have massive power. Resulting in a congress which is unresponsive to the vast majority of Americans as the representatives in Washington largely serve the interests of those who paid for them to get elected rather then the people whom they technically were elected to represent.

I think we need a wider democracy which can be more representative of the country and one way to do that would be to more to some form of a PR system in elections.

Black Swan · 04-10-2014 12:55am

eire4 wrote: »

Resulting in a congress which is unresponsive to the vast majority of Americans as the representatives in Washington largely serve the interests of those who paid for them to get elected rather then the people whom they technically were elected to represent.

Plus, the PACs to elect the president (and other officials) conveniently circumvent campaign finance reform, which are all too often funded by special interests.

Fr Tod Umptious · 05-10-2014 1:55pm

FatherTed wrote: »

There will be a lot of talk and money spent between now and the election. We should just save ourselves the hassle and annoint Hillary now because she's going to win.

Is Hillary's success that guaranteed at this stage ?.

I can see a few reason why she may not be ideal.
She will be 69 on election day.
I know that Regan was older but he was a Republican following a poor Democrat, Hillary will be a Democrat trying to follow a less than spectacular Democrat.

If the GOP could find a younger dynamic candidate , and its a big if, then he/she would really give Hillary a run for her money.
Remember the last time the incumbents put up an old stager v a young kid on the block ?

Black Swan · 06-10-2014 2:00am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Is Hillary's success that guaranteed at this stage ?

I'm not thrilled by Hillary Clinton, finding her an unenlightened bore. But the Democrats have not produced anyone that could complete with the Clinton machine. Name one? Obama was a 2008 dark horse that didn't really appear until the race gate opened. I doubt there will be another such Democrat in 2016 to all-of-a-sudden appear as he did. Oh, there will be candidates, but not strong ones.

Ronald Reagan was older too, just like Hilliary Clinton is now, as you say. But I am not sure that age will be a negative factor, given that the massive 70 million US Baby Boomers (born between 1946-1964) are beginning to retire in substantial numbers (and such seniors tend to vote in greater numbers than youthful voters at the other end of the election continuum). Seniors may identify with Hilliary Clinton because of her age, who knows?

In like manner, Republicans or Democrats would be wise not to talk about the predicted failure of Social Security, or propose cut-backs during the 2016 presidential debates. It may make fiscal sense to propose cuts, or some other alternative to SS failure, but it would be political suicide with the Baby Boomer segment of the voter population. And there are enough senior retirees to make a difference between who wins in 2016, who might forget their party registration and cross-over to defend their retirements.

Obviously the older age voting segment is not the only segment to worry about in 2016, but it's an important one. So Hilliary Clinton's age may be a wash, similar but in some ways different from Reagan times.

On the flip side, who leads the GOP today? I don't see a Republican equivalent to Obama leading Democrats. Once again, 2016 will be a horse race for the Republican nomination, with no clear winner picks when the gate first opens.

FreudianSlippers · 06-10-2014 11:12am

Amerika wrote: »

Yes I'm fine with it. It’s part of the reason why the US, in a little over 200 years, has become the beacon for the world; and has excelled in opportunity, might, compassion, innovation, technology and medicine... to list just a few.

So how do you explain China passing the US in almost every one if your examples?

sin_city · 06-10-2014 12:15pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So how do you explain China passing the US in almost every one if your examples?

It's called Capitalism....they used to have it in the US

Godge · 06-10-2014 12:55pm

Black Swan wrote: »

On the flip side, who leads the GOP today? I don't see a Republican equivalent to Obama leading Democrats. Once again, 2016 will be a horse race for the Republican nomination, with no clear winner picks when the gate first opens.

And they will have thrown so much dirt at one another by the end of the nomination race that Hilary will look like a saint by comparison.

Amerika · 06-10-2014 4:18pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So how do you explain China passing the US in almost every one if your examples?

I’d put American educations and Espionage at the top of the list.

Amerika · 06-10-2014 4:40pm

eire4 wrote: »

Ok I just wanted to make sure I had you right. Your saying your fine with the current state of US politics.

Personally I am not. As I said earlier I see a system that is broken. We have a 2 party monopoly. A large number of seats are gerrymandered by both parties in terms of the districting. While the supreme courts money is speech rulings have meant that the wealthy and powerful corporations have massive power. Resulting in a congress which is unresponsive to the vast majority of Americans as the representatives in Washington largely serve the interests of those who paid for them to get elected rather then the people whom they technically were elected to represent.

I think we need a wider democracy which can be more representative of the country and one way to do that would be to more to some form of a PR system in elections.

Actually I’d say we have three parties. Independents comprise the largest party at 42%. The Independent party forces the other two parties to adjust at elections. Haven’t you noticed Democrats suddenly turning into centrists every four years, and Republicans growing hearts? And what party could make a run for a large slice of the power in the future? Libertarian, Conservative, Green, Socialist? Don’t see it happening in my lifetime.

I prefer our Democratic Republic over a Democracy any day.

Thargor · 06-10-2014 4:45pm

I really hope they sort out the debates this time around instead of these ridiculous soundbite reading sessions with only vague relations to the questions that were asked. Wishful thinking but maybe the networks will come around to how entertaining it can be and the social media buzz it can stir when you let imbeciles like Perry run their mouths a bit.

Way too early for Susana Martinez, she'll give it a few more years first but definitely a future contender.

FreudianSlippers · 06-10-2014 6:14pm

Amerika wrote: »

I’d put American educations and Espionage at the top of the list.

What's an American education? Genuine question. I would have thought European educations would be what China is doing at present, very high academic level at a relatively low cost.

College in the US is like leaving cert level of education here for the most part. You just end up in thousands of dollars of debt for something that is basically worthless.

Amerika · 06-10-2014 6:35pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What's an American education? Genuine question. I would have thought European educations would be what China is doing at present, very high academic level at a relatively low cost.

College in the US is like leaving cert level of education here for the most part. You just end up in thousands of dollars of debt for something that is basically worthless.

Worthless?

I was at Yale University last month checking out the campus for my daughter, who is being recruited by them (and tuition costs would be less than 5% for her). I thought I was at some Asian university, and couldn’t understand what most of the students said.

The top 20 colleges (re: The Best) in the US have seen a dramatic increase in foreign enrollment. The number of foreign students on F-1 visas in U.S. colleges and universities grew from 110,000 in 2001 to 819,644 in 2013. The majority of international students in the US study science, technology, engineering, mathematics or business, management and marketing fields. Students from China, India and South Korea make up 49% of the total number of international students in the United States.

So tell me again why China and Asia are now excelling in the sciences?

BoJack Horseman · 06-10-2014 6:49pm

Amerika wrote: »

Worthless?

I was at Yale University last month checking out the campus for my daughter, who is being recruited by them (and tuition costs would be less than 5% for her). I thought I was at some Asian university, and couldn’t understand what most of the students said.

The top 20 colleges (re: The Best) in the US have seen a dramatic increase in foreign enrollment. The number of foreign students on F-1 visas in U.S. colleges and universities grew from 110,000 in 2001 to 819,644 in 2013. The majority of international students in the US study science, technology, engineering, mathematics or business, management and marketing fields. Students from China, India and South Korea make up 49% of the total number of international students in the United States.

So tell me again why China and Asia are now excelling in the sciences?

True.

But there are some "for profit" colleges that are all but worthless.

By & large though, an American education is a pretty good one (if pricey) at all levels.

Black Swan · 06-10-2014 10:03pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What's an American education? Genuine question. I would have thought European educations would be what China is doing at present, very high academic level at a relatively low cost.

College in the US is like leaving cert level of education here for the most part. You just end up in thousands of dollars of debt for something that is basically worthless.

You may wish to review this ranking system. The London Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2014-2015 are "the only global university performance tables to judge world class universities across all of their core missions - teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook. The top universities rankings employ 13 carefully calibrated performance indicators to provide the most comprehensive and balanced comparisons available, which are trusted by students, academics, university leaders, industry and governments."

Amerika wrote: »

Worthless?
The top 20 colleges (re: The Best) in the US have seen a dramatic increase in foreign enrollment.

Of the top 20 ranked universities in the world (The London Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2014-2015), 15 are in the US, including the top 2: California Institute of Technology (1st), and Harvard University (2nd).

Amerika: Yale University has improved its ranking in the past academic year, climbing from 11th to 9th.

Caution should be exercised when interpreting these rankings. Specific academic programmes are not ranked, rather overall university performance based upon their ranking criteria; e.g., a specific discipline may be ranked higher than the host university.

eire4 · 06-10-2014 10:35pm

Amerika wrote: »

Actually I’d say we have three parties. Independents comprise the largest party at 42%. The Independent party forces the other two parties to adjust at elections. Haven’t you noticed Democrats suddenly turning into centrists every four years, and Republicans growing hearts? And what party could make a run for a large slice of the power in the future? Libertarian, Conservative, Green, Socialist? Don’t see it happening in my lifetime.

I prefer our Democratic Republic over a Democracy any day.

There is no independant party.

What I have noticed is that Washington politicans are so under the influence of those who paid to put them there that they only give lip service to taking care of the needs of the people they represent.

As for what parties could make a run for office you see that kind of thinking is party of the problem with Washington as it stands. If lets say a Green Party and a Libertarian Party were allowed to function and grow they might only say each have 5% of the vote but they would at least have a voice and be allowed to offer an alternative. Sure they would need time to grow and become a viable alternative in terms of gaining significant and high office in Washington but thats only to be expected.

I have no idea what level of support those 2 parties could build in the first few years if given a fair playing field to put forth their messages but there is no doubt that the system as it stands is controlled by the Democrats and Republicans as a duopoly and they set up rules and regulations to make sure smaller parties have as small a voice as possible and do not have a chance to ever actually threaten them for office.

The presidential debate commission for instance is thought by many I would say to be an indpendant commission. It is in fact an organization owned by and controlled by the Democrat and Republican parties who make sure that presidential candidates from other parties are excluded from the debates.

As I have said earlier more then once on this thread I would like to see some form of a PR sytem used for elections in this country. I also think it is vital we end the blatant gerrymandering of political districts which is done by both parties depending on a state level who controls each state. We also need to find a way to level the playing field financially so that Washington is not there to serve only those who paid to get them elected.

OLeary in the Grave · 06-10-2014 10:52pm

2008 was unusual in being fought out among senators. They usually elect a Governor with executive experience.

I fancy Martin O'Malley, Democratic Governor of Maryland, to defeat Scott Walker, Republican Governor of Wisconsin in November 2016.

Black Swan · 06-10-2014 11:26pm

Former president GW Bush claims that his brother Jeb Bush “is weighing his options” for the 2016 presidential race. It would appear that Jeb is sending up test balloons to see what the responses might be at this point. I still believe that he will not declare for 2016, giving the US voter a little more time to forget the Great Recession and the 2 longest wars in US history that occurred under brother GW's administration.

Amerika · 07-10-2014 2:13pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

True.

But there are some "for profit" colleges that are all but worthless.

By & large though, an American education is a pretty good one (if pricey) at all levels.

I agree with you intellectually that some degrees received at some of the "for profit" colleges are all but worthless. Even at some of the low cost state colleges. But on a practical level I would disagree. I believe it still holds true that that “piece of paper” (college degree) commands an average extra earning potential of $1 million (US) over the course of an individuals working life against someone without the piece of paper, as long at the individual receives a marketable degree, and not something like Toltec Literature.

2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Comments