2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

eire4 · 31-01-2015 1:17am

The meeting did indeed take place at the Ritz Carlton in Rancho Mirage in California. The secrecy is not in that the event took place but in what took place at the summit. It strikes me that if the polices, politicans etc that the Koch brothers back with their enormous financial muscle are so positive for the majority of Americans why all the secrecy?

Brian? · 31-01-2015 8:53am

jank wrote: »

If this secret meeting really did take place then it's not much of a secret. I am always fascinated by the will to believe is pseudo conspiracies by extremes of both wings.

It's hardly a conspiracy theory. The Koch brothers pour millions into superpacs and are quite open about their goals.

As for why the details of the meetin are secret, why give the other side any information unless your absolutely have to. I'd say the Dem machine is 90% aligned to a Hilary v Jeb election. If the Koch bros et al throw their money behind someone else, that's a game changer.

I can't see them supporting Christie, but maybe they'll go all out for Rand Paul.

Black Swan · 31-01-2015 10:05am

Brian? wrote: »

I can't see them supporting Christie, but maybe they'll go all out for Rand Paul.

Not knowing at this early date if there will be an economic adjustment (i.e., recession) before or after November 2016 complicates any predictions about either a Democrat or Republican presidential win. Regardless, I seriously doubt that Rand Paul will be the GOP nominee under any circumstances. To do so would almost ensure a Hillary Clinton win, because Rand Paul is too narrowly defined and will not receive a sufficient number of Independent and Democrat swing votes to get 270 or more Electoral College votes.

Brian? · 31-01-2015 11:06am

Black Swan wrote: »

Not knowing at this early date if there will be an economic adjustment (i.e., recession) before or after November 2016 complicates any predictions about either a Democrat or Republican presidential win. Regardless, I seriously doubt that Rand Paul will be the GOP nominee under any circumstances. To do so would almost ensure a Hillary Clinton win, because Rand Paul is too narrowly defined and will not receive a sufficient number of Independent and Democrat swing votes to get 270 or more Electoral College votes.

I think that Ran Paul will lose a general against any decent candidate the Dems put up and it's a sure thing against Hilary.

However Paul is ideologically aligned with the Koch brothers, the same sex parents of the Tea Party. They lost with a comparative moderate last time in Romney, they might feel the time is right to run a libertarian.

Black Swan · 31-01-2015 11:09am

Brian? wrote: »

...they might feel the time is right to run a libertarian.

The general US voter is not ready for electing a libertarian to their highest office now, or anytime in the foreseeable future. I doubt that many know what a libertarian is politically.

eire4 · 01-02-2015 5:16am

Black Swan wrote: »

The general US voter is not ready for electing a libertarian to their highest office now, or anytime in the foreseeable future. I doubt that many know what a libertarian is politically.

Your probably right about that and I would add on that many Americans probably do not even know that their is a Libertarian Party in existence in the US although to be fair the reasons for that have more to do with the 2 party cartel the Republicans and Democrats impose on the country.

Black Swan · 03-02-2015 9:59pm

If Jeb Bush wins 2016, and the Republicans continue to control both houses of Congress, the American form of government will suffer. One party control removes many of the checks and balances in their system.

eire4 · 03-02-2015 10:22pm

Black Swan wrote: »

If Jeb Bush wins 2016, and the Republicans continue to control both houses of Congress, the American form of government will suffer. One party control removes many of the checks and balances in their system.

Plus by a very large margin Republicans control the legislatures at the state level for the most part already. I think its something like 30-7 in favour of Republicans in terms of the legislatures at the state level.

Black Swan · 06-02-2015 5:39pm

It would appear that Jeb Bush is now appealing to the very large and growing Hispanic voter segment in America. This should be easy for him to do, given his wife is Hispanic, and he speaks Spanish. His recent comments on immigration reform may be cause for the conservative GOP wing to pause.

jank · 07-02-2015 7:56am

Black Swan wrote: »

It would appear that Jeb Bush is now appealing to the very large and growing Hispanic voter segment in America. This should be easy for him to do, given his wife is Hispanic, and he speaks Spanish. His recent comments on immigration reform may be cause for the conservative GOP wing to pause.

As I said... :cool:

Brian? · 07-02-2015 9:23am

Black Swan wrote: »

It would appear that Jeb Bush is now appealing to the very large and growing Hispanic voter segment in America. This should be easy for him to do, given his wife is Hispanic, and he speaks Spanish. His recent comments on immigration reform may be cause for the conservative GOP wing to pause.

Pause, maybe but not stop. They want to win, Jeb is their best chance. The above just makes him more attractive to the swing vote.

I could be wrong about this, but the vast majority of the GOP are perfectly capable of rationality. He's the rational choice.

Brian? · 07-02-2015 9:31am

jank wrote: »

As I said... :cool:

Not one hardline conservative quoted in that article directly attacked Bush for his stance. A lot of dancing around the point.

Black Swan · 07-02-2015 8:47pm

Brian? wrote: »

Pause, maybe but not stop. They want to win, Jeb is their best chance. The above just makes him more attractive to the swing vote.

I could be wrong about this, but the vast majority of the GOP are perfectly capable of rationality. He's the rational choice.

Although still long off to November 2016, if the election were held today, it would appear to be a contest between Jeb Bush and Hilliary Clinton. Personally, I find them both unimaginative, boring, and greatly influenced by special interests. You would think that a super power with 310 million plus people could produce more qualified leaders other than deferring to these lackluster Bush Dynasty and Clinton Machine candidates?

jank · 08-02-2015 2:11pm

Brian? wrote: »

Not one hardline conservative quoted in that article directly attacked Bush for his stance. A lot of dancing around the point.

Immigration reform has been steadfastly refused by the GOP leadership and establishment. Now we have the 'establishment' nominee and the 'dye in the wool right wing' GOP candidate signalling a break from this policy...
Just saying..:pac:

jank · 08-02-2015 2:16pm

As to why they didn't outright attack him..

The comments add to one of Bush's greatest challenges in the GOP primary — a record that, while once conservative for the party, hasn't aged well as the GOP has moved farther right. Bozell warned that, once the gloves are off, Bush's comments will haunt him through the primary.

Much too early for this type of stuff. Once the known candidates are know to us all, the mudslinging will start.

Black Swan · 08-02-2015 4:54pm

Association or mere coincidence? George H. W. Bush launched Desert Storm. George W. Bush launched Shock and Awe. If elected, will Jeb Bush launch an Iraq war?

Manach · 08-02-2015 5:01pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Association or mere coincidence? George H. W. Bush launched Desert Storm. George W. Bush launched Shock and Awe. If elected, will Jeb Bush launch an Iraq war?

Leaving aside the seismic drift away from the historical norms from both parties makes imputing pandering to the wings rather difficult to measure, then using the same logic would we not expect an Africian expedition or military actions to distract from domestic issues a feature of Clinton term?

Black Swan · 08-02-2015 6:14pm

Manach wrote: »

Leaving aside the seismic drift away from the historical norms from both parties makes imputing pandering to the wings rather difficult to measure, then using the same logic would we not expect an Africian expedition or military actions to distract from domestic issues a feature of Clinton term?

Almost all presidents have been involved in so called "police actions," but not in launching wars. The scale and complexity makes them quite different. Also launching wars and continuing wars started by other administrations confounds the measurements of such issues, as does the fact that wars have been launched by presidents of both parties historically, and often for very complex reasons that may exceed an A+B results in C connection.

Admittedly, only having two data points (Bush I and II) falls to the level of an unscientific anecdotal observation, suffers from individual opinion, and acknowledges that no one is value-free and without bias. Given these considerable limitations, I believe that Jeb Bush, with all his Bush family, party, and special interest influences would be more likely to launch a war than Bill Clinton was, or Hilliary Clinton should she win 2016. It's not an exercise in logic, or an explanation derived from theory or an empirical study, just a simple, unqualified personal opinion (like most posts on boards).

jank · 09-02-2015 2:31am

Black Swan wrote: »

Association or mere coincidence? George H. W. Bush launched Desert Storm. George W. Bush launched Shock and Awe. If elected, will Jeb Bush launch an Iraq war?

Depends how strong the ISIS roots are suppose. No appetite for war in the US though. However, I think the Obama administration have pretty much gotten away politically with pulling out its troop so drastically and quickly against the wishes of many in the intelligence community. Its something no one mentions.

Black Swan · 09-02-2015 5:01am

jank wrote: »

No appetite for war in the US though.

Agree. I would suspect that both party candidates will avoid war discussions.

Black Swan · 18-02-2015 10:11pm

The media is filled with conflicting messages, including the occasional retraction, about the presidential exploratory committee of Jeb Bush, but we all know that he will be running in 2016. It's a game that both American parties play at this time, pretending to not be running when the horses have already left the gate.

Paleface · 18-02-2015 11:47pm

Why do they pretend though? Whats the strategy behind saying that you are not running until a specific time given that whoever raises the most money is going to win anyway!

Black Swan · 19-02-2015 12:22am

Paleface wrote: »

Why do they pretend though? Whats the strategy behind saying that you are not running until a specific time given that whoever raises the most money is going to win anyway!

The greatest craic I've found in American campaign gaming is when an obvious candidate keeps releasing announcements that they are reluctant to run (for this reason or that), only to later declare they are, claiming that they had been compelled by the voters to run. Candidates from both parties have historically used this ploy.

MightyMandarin · 19-02-2015 12:43am

It's also better to act like you wouldn't mind being president, as opposed to really wanting to be president.

People like Mitt Romney give off a kinda creepy vibe because it's clear that he's desperate to be president which turns people off as opposed to Obama in '08 who acted more like everyone around him wanted him to run, so that's why he ran, rather than pleading with the public to vote for him which is how Romney acted.

Black Swan · 19-02-2015 1:31am

MightyMandarin wrote: »

It's also better to act like you wouldn't mind being president, as opposed to really wanting to be president.

Or acting the humble politician? Is this an oxymoron? Or playing the role of the common man for photo ops (e.g., pushing a shopping cart with groceries while in your jeans, kissing babies, or buying a burger in a fast food shop with a million bucks of suits surrounding you with wifi ear comms and concealed weapons, etc.)? If voters don't buy these political ploys, why do candidates continue to play them?

MightyMandarin · 19-02-2015 2:07am

Black Swan wrote: »

Or acting the humble politician? Is this an oxymoron? Or playing the role of the common man for photo ops (e.g., pushing a shopping cart with groceries while in your jeans, kissing babies, or buying a burger in a fast food shop with a million bucks of suits surrounding you with wifi ear comms and concealed weapons, etc.)? If voters don't buy these political ploys, why do candidates continue to play them?

To be honest I don't buy photo ops and the whole 'kissing babies' crap, but most people do. That's why candidates do that. That said, how a candidate can act as 'normal' in these photo ops is a big influence on how well they do overall. It's not easy to do this though.

For example, when asked if he followed football, Romney replied 'yes, I'm friends with a few owners'; a massive cock-up on his part and shows why he couldn't shake off the venture capitalist perception people had of him. Obama on the other hand, continually came off as a somewhat average guy, even though he is a very well-educated, experienced politician.

In essence, Romney just comes off as an awkward kinda guy. He's well spoken but he just seemed so desperate to be President, not so much to help people though him being president. Obama, indeed most other candidates, just seem to have an aura about them that seems like they want to help people, and being President seems like the best way to do it.

Black Swan · 19-02-2015 5:18am

Impression management will be huge leading up to the 2016 presidentials by candidates and parties. Consultants with expertise in this area make millions. It has been suggested that a billion may be spent by both Democrats and Republicans leading up to 2016. Makes me wonder what vote is being cast by Americans, for president or leading actor and actress?

Brian? · 19-02-2015 9:04am

Black Swan wrote: »

Or acting the humble politician? Is this an oxymoron? Or playing the role of the common man for photo ops (e.g., pushing a shopping cart with groceries while in your jeans, kissing babies, or buying a burger in a fast food shop with a million bucks of suits surrounding you with wifi ear comms and concealed weapons, etc.)? If voters don't buy these political ploys, why do candidates continue to play them?

Voters do buy these political ploys. It worked for GW Bush against Gore and Clinton against Bush Snr especially well.

I can't remember who said it, but swing voters tend to vote for who'd they'd prefer to have a beer with.

It's the reason I think the Dems are crazy not to get behind Joe Biden. He's phenomenal at playing the role of "average guy on the street". Sometimes I forget he's not "Diamond Joe" of The Onion.

Black Swan · 19-02-2015 9:57am

Brian? wrote: »

It's the reason I think the Dems are crazy not to get behind Joe Biden. He's phenomenal at playing the role of "average guy on the street". Sometimes I forget he's not "Diamond Joe" of The Onion.

Methinks that Biden cannot beat Jeb Bush, but Hillary Clinton can, if the economy remains strong up to November 2016. But if there is an economic adjustment before November 2016, Jeb Bush will probably win. What's the old political expression? "It's the economy stupid!" Well, the Dow closed again at 18K, when compared to below 7K at the close of GW Bush 2008.

MightyMandarin · 19-02-2015 3:55pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Impression management will be huge leading up to the 2016 presidentials by candidates and parties. Consultants with expertise in this area make millions. It has been suggested that a billion may be spent by both Democrats and Republicans leading up to 2016. Makes me wonder what vote is being cast by Americans, for president or leading actor and actress?

Is this really anything new? Politics has never really been about voting for the best candidate, but the most popular candidate. Many candidates who were better qualified have lost elections because thy came off as awkward, uptight, boring or just not as charismatic as their opposition. Nowadays it's pretty much impossible to succeed in politics without having charisma and great acting skills.

2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Comments