2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Brian?

Black Swan wrote: »

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.

I think the days of "it's the economy stupid!" may be over. "It's the Superpac stupid" has taken over.

Massively funded Superpacs haven't won a presidential election yet, but they've won plenty of seats in Congress.

eire4

Brian? wrote: »

I think the days of "it's the economy stupid!" may be over. "It's the Superpac stupid" has taken over.

Massively funded Superpacs haven't won a presidential election yet, but they've won plenty of seats in Congress.

This is a very valid observation. The awful affront to democracy that was citizens united is having a more and more pervasive influence on US politics with each election since that dreadful decision.

jank

MightyMandarin wrote: »

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.

Some wishful thinking there as Obama was 'campaigning' months before McCain. Read "The race of a lifetime'. Obama is not all sunshine and lollipops, although that is what narrative the media lapped up in 08.

If Romney was desperate to become president, the Hillary is going to explode out the blocks... After all she has been waiting since 1994...

jank

So, are we resigned to having Bush v Clinton.
The Dems would be mad to run Biden. There is no way in hell people will trust him as he comes across as the crazy uncle who may be fun but would not trust with running the country. Who else? Warren? Too left wing..
Clinton has that wrapped up.
Bush looks to be the front runner but that race will be tighter and more fraught as the GOP are more divided. However, the winner of that race should be battle hardened going into the main thing.
At this moment in time, hard to look past Clinton but it really depends on the mood of the electorate.

MightyMandarin

jank wrote: »

Some wishful thinking there as Obama was 'campaigning' months before McCain. Read "The race of a lifetime'. Obama is not all sunshine and lollipops, although that is what narrative the media lapped up in 08.

If Romney was desperate to become president, the Hillary is going to explode out the blocks... After all she has been waiting since 1994...

Never said Obama was perfect, but he led the best campaign by far in '08 and also seemed like the most 'average' guy out of the candidates.

Hillary might well want the presidency more than Mitt, but she isn't near as awkward as him. She's quite boring and uptight but she doesn't give off the vibes that Mitt does imo.

MightyMandarin

jank wrote: »

So, are we resigned to having Bush v Clinton.
The Dems would be mad to run Biden. There is no way in hell people will trust him as he comes across as the crazy uncle who may be fun but would not trust with running the country. Who else? Warren? Too left wing..
Clinton has that wrapped up.
Bush looks to be the front runner but that race will be tighter and more fraught as the GOP are more divided. However, the winner of that race should be battle hardened going into the main thing.
At this moment in time, hard to look past Clinton but it really depends on the mood of the electorate.

There are other democratic options out there like O'Malley and Scott Brown, though neither would be strong enough to topple Clinton I'd say. Warren would be an ideal president but unless she tones down her message, she has no chance of getting the nomination; and she doesn't seem like the person who would tone down anything for a candidacy.

Jeb Bush seems like the frontrunner but it's still very early. Christie is almost definitely running, judging by his tours around the country, and his love of Iowa. Rand Paul also looks possible but he's too right wing, Cruz aswell. Marco Rubio seems a possible winner in the overall election, though I doubt he can generate enough support in the base to get the candidacy. I just don't think Bush has much hope of beating Hillary if it happens. He'll struggle to shake off George W's shadow and with the economy slowly improving, by the time November 2016 rolls around, it's likely most Americans will have a better opinion on Obama's presidency and won't be as hasty to go Republican again.

Black Swan

Although very early for US Politics, today it would appear the Bush Dynasty vs Clinton Machine. Why would any well informed Independent bother? Perhaps turn out to vote for locale, regional, state, and congressional candidates during GE 2016, but skip voting for either of these 2.

Brian?

jank wrote: »

So, are we resigned to having Bush v Clinton.
The Dems would be mad to run Biden. There is no way in hell people will trust him as he comes across as the crazy uncle who may be fun but would not trust with running the country. Who else? Warren? Too left wing..
Clinton has that wrapped up.
Bush looks to be the front runner but that race will be tighter and more fraught as the GOP are more divided. However, the winner of that race should be battle hardened going into the main thing.
At this moment in time, hard to look past Clinton but it really depends on the mood of the electorate.

Joe Biden is portrayed as being a gaff prone, crazy uncle type. But in reality he's an intelligent, principled and effective politician. It makes him a great candidate IMO. Most people are too happy to accept the crazy uncle portrayal to see that.

Biden won't run against Hilary though it seems. I'd rather almost anyone than Hilary run for the Dems.

Fr Tod Umptious

MightyMandarin wrote: »

There are other democratic options out there like O'Malley and Scott Brown, though neither would be strong enough to topple Clinton I'd say. Warren would be an ideal president but unless she tones down her message, she has no chance of getting the nomination; and she doesn't seem like the person who would tone down anything for a candidacy.

Jeb Bush seems like the frontrunner but it's still very early. Christie is almost definitely running, judging by his tours around the country, and his love of Iowa. Rand Paul also looks possible but he's too right wing, Cruz aswell. Marco Rubio seems a possible winner in the overall election, though I doubt he can generate enough support in the base to get the candidacy. I just don't think Bush has much hope of beating Hillary if it happens. He'll struggle to shake off George W's shadow and with the economy slowly improving, by the time November 2016 rolls around, it's likely most Americans will have a better opinion on Obama's presidency and won't be as hasty to go Republican again.

Firstly Scott Brown is a Rep., unless there is another one out there.

Secondly how would Warren be an ideal president ?, after 8 years the people are in no appetite to go further to the left.

And thirdly i think Omamas ineptitude on foregin policy, unpopular health care reform etc will be more in the minds of the US public than what happened with the economy 8 or more years ago under the last days of Bush.

MightyMandarin

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Firstly Scott Brown is a Rep., unless there is another one out there.

Secondly how would Warren be an ideal president ?, after 8 years the people are in no appetite to go further to the left.

And thirdly i think Omamas ineptitude on foregin policy, unpopular health care reform etc will be more in the minds of the US public than what happened with the economy 8 or more years ago under the last days of Bush.

Yeah I got mixed up there

Well aside from being the only candidate who seems to actually want to help people she's more qualified than any other potential President in recent times. She's a former law professor at Harvard and also specialises in Bankruptcy, so she knows what she's talking about when she says that Wall St. is as bad as ever. She has a real backbone and does not alter or quieten her opinion, even when pretty much every other democrat supports a bill. She seems to be a person who hasn't changed her opinions on the banks since she went to D.C. and that is something I highly commend her for. She has flaws; she doesn't seem to compromise with Republicans well, but considering some of the sh*t they've tried to peddle through Congress, I can't say I blame her. I think of her as a Hillary that doesn't bore the arse off me and will actually do something to stop Wall St. running America.

You couldn't be more wrong. Foreign policy and healthcare are important, but frankly, people couldn't give a toss if they are out of a job for years. Even then, his foreign policy hasn't been awful if you take a look at what he's had on his plate. He inherited 2 failing wars and although they're far from over, at least he's tried to end them unlike Bush. He's also had to deal with the fallout from Benghazi, Putin trying to expand his empire, ISIS, Egypt and Lybia, Netanyahu being a pain and Israel and Palestine fighting, Ed Snowden and that debacle, and North Korea and Iran's nuclear program. Considering all of this, which are messes not entirely cause by him, he hasn't done terribly.

I also fail to see your problem with healthcare. The initial rollout was a disaster but since then it's been a success. Many americans who wouldn't have dreamed of having healthcare before can now afford it. Surely that's better for basic welfare right? The unpopularity of healthcare reform has largely come from conservative groups funded by Insurance companies.

Black Swan

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And thirdly i think Omamas ineptitude on foregin policy, unpopular health care reform etc will be more in the minds of the US public than what happened with the economy 8 or more years ago under the last days of Bush.

Unfortunately you are probably correct that the American voter has already forgotten the extraordinary hardship suffered during the Great Recession during the Bush administration, millions of housing foreclosures, double-digit unemployment, doubling the Fed deficit, the largest bank failure in US History (Washington Mutual), and the combined deregulation and staff cutting of Bush SEC chair appointee Cox in 2004 which ultimately let the foxes watch the chicken coop (investment banks self-regulating) and the massive failure of such investment banks as Bear Stearns (17 March 2008). Not to leave out starting the 2 longest wars in US history, a completely taxpayer wasteful misadventure without foresight or credible justification. Completely forgotten by the US voters with short memories.

So Democrat ObamaCare (which the American voter has completely forgotten or were naive of its origins in Republican RomneyCare), will be an issue, because it's recent during 2016 GE? What a craic!

jank

Brian? wrote: »

Joe Biden is portrayed as being a gaff prone, crazy uncle type. But in reality he's an intelligent, principled and effective politician. It makes him a great candidate IMO. Most people are too happy to accept the crazy uncle portrayal to see that.

Biden won't run against Hilary though it seems. I'd rather almost anyone than Hilary run for the Dems.

Biden may be intelligent and an effective politician but that is not the perspective and with politics perspective is reality. W.Bush was not the bumbling idiot that the media portrayed either but it is the narrative that follows him.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11419538/Creepy-Veep-Joe-Biden-nuzzles-wife-of-colleague-and-claims-he-is-friends-with-lots-of-Somali-cab-drivers.html

Anyway, he is too old!

southsiderosie 2.0

No way is Biden the candidate. He is too much of a loose cannon. And Jeb Bush always comes across as very calm; the debate would be a disaster for Biden.

Bush v. Clinton 2.0 is going to be expensive and boring. And hard leftists and hard right wingers will whinge, but will go to the polls because they hate the other side more. Liberals will be desperate to keep both the Congress and the White House from being controlled by the GOP, and the right HATES the Clintons.

Black Swan

Joe Biden will not run in the Democrat primaries for president, given that Hilliary Clinton is running (although officially undeclared). Elizabeth Warren may run, but does not have a chance against the Clinton Machine.

eire4

Although he is technically an Independant it seems Bernie Sanders the Vermont Senator is having a serious look at running.

Black Swan

eire4 wrote: »

Although he is technically an Independant it seems Bernie Sanders the Vermont Senator is having a serious look at running.

He is indeed an Independent, and outside the bipartisan system that historically controls who wins president, consequently he is really outside the game. If he declares himself a Democrat or Republican, he really has no chance against the Clinton Machine or Bush Dynasty during the primaries. If he runs as an Independent, it's really doubtful that he will qualify for votes in all 50 states, so for all practical purposes, he cannot win in 2016.

MightyMandarin

Black Swan wrote: »

He is indeed an Independent, and outside the bipartisan system that historically controls who wins president, consequently he is really outside the game. If he declares himself a Democrat or Republican, he really has no chance against the Clinton Machine or Bush Dynasty during the primaries. If he runs as an Independent, it's really doubtful that he will qualify for votes in all 50 states, so for all practical purposes, he cannot win in 2016.

Does he have to declare in all 50 States or could he just run in those which he thinks he have a chance of winning and getting delegates? If so he could just avoid places like Montana and Alaska who have very little delegates, and just pour resources into California, NY and others like Florida and Ohio.

Black Swan

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Does he have to declare in all 50 States or could he just run in those which he thinks he have a chance of winning and getting delegates? If so he could just avoid places like Montana and Alaska who have very little delegates, and just pour resources into California, NY and others like Florida and Ohio.

He needs 270 plus EC to win, and 2016 promises to be a very tight race, consequently to fail to qualify in all 50 would ensure a loss.

eire4

Black Swan wrote: »

He is indeed an Independent, and outside the bipartisan system that historically controls who wins president, consequently he is really outside the game. If he declares himself a Democrat or Republican, he really has no chance against the Clinton Machine or Bush Dynasty during the primaries. If he runs as an Independent, it's really doubtful that he will qualify for votes in all 50 states, so for all practical purposes, he cannot win in 2016.

Agreed highly unlikely he would win a presidential election although he certainly would be a real breath of fresh air if he could even make it into the race. There is no doubt though from his recent activities that he is looking at running. From what I hear he may decide to declare with the Democratic Party and run in their primaries. Certainly like him or not like the Democratic Party or not it would be good for them if they actually had some kind of real primary process rather then making their nomination an uncontested coronation.

Black Swan

Ballotpedia has an interesting list of "Possible Presidential Candidates" with summaries for 2016. It would appear that Elizabeth Warren said "No" to 2016.

eire4

Black Swan wrote: »

Ballotpedia has an interesting list of "Possible Presidential Candidates" with summaries for 2016. It would appear that Elizabeth Warren said "No" to 2016.

It doesn't surprise me she is a no. I haven't seen anything from her that suggested to me that she was seriously looking at running in 2016. Her profile has been on the rise though both nationally and within her party so maybe she has an eye on 2020.

Black Swan

At this very early date, it looks like Jeb Bush vs Chris Christie seriously competing in the 2016 GOP primaries. All other contenders falling way behind in terms of funding and delegation votes.

BOHtox

Ron Paul won quite a few delegates in states he didn't win the popular vote or have a massive amount of resources. I'm not saying Rand Paul will win, or even come close, but he could well stay in it until the end, like his father, collecting delegates and spreading the message of "liberty".

When will we see primary debates, primaries, straw polls and campaigning starting? I'm living in America for the summer, would the summer be too early to see debates or any sort of preliminary campaigning?

Also what's are some good places to follow news of campaigning etc? Pretty much relying on this thread and a few facebook pages.

Black Swan

BOHtox wrote: »

Ron Paul won quite a few delegates in states he didn't win the popular vote or have a massive amount of resources. I'm not saying Rand Paul will win, or even come close, but he could well stay in it until the end, like his father, collecting delegates and spreading the message of "liberty".

If Rand Paul runs in 2016, he will draw votes away from Jeb Bush, and if the race between Jeb Bush and Hilliary Clinton is close, could cost Bush the race. This Republican vote split may occur in 2 ways. Those that voted for Rand Paul in the GOP primaries stay at home and don't vote for Jeb Bush in November 2016; or Rand Paul runs for president on a small party ticket like the Libertarian Party, and those votes are drawn away from Republican Jeb Bush.

BOHtox wrote: »

Also what's are some good places to follow news of campaigning etc? Pretty much relying on this thread and a few facebook pages.

Real Clear Politics is a grand source that collects all the polling data, but their editorial commentaries and news article links are very right wing and conservative biased. What I sometimes do is to start 1st with the most recent weekly poll results listed by RCP, ignore their biased commentary, and rather go to the source of the polls individually and read their methodologies, results, limitations, and conclusions.

Brian?

BOHtox wrote: »

Ron Paul won quite a few delegates in states he didn't win the popular vote or have a massive amount of resources. I'm not saying Rand Paul will win, or even come close, but he could well stay in it until the end, like his father, collecting delegates and spreading the message of "liberty".

I'm sorry, but I find the obsession with Paul's around her infuriating. Ron Paul only won as many delegates as he did last time, because he stated in after everyone else but Romney dropped out. He was never ahead of Gingrich or Santorum.

Rand may do slightly better, but he hasn't a hope of securing the nomination.

InTheTrees

BOHtox wrote: »

Also what's are some good places to follow news of campaigning etc? Pretty much relying on this thread and a few facebook pages.

I'm a big fan of Huffington Post (slightly left of center):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/elections-2016/

Thargor

InTheTrees wrote: »

I'm a big fan of Huffington Post (slightly left of center):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/elections-2016/

Slightly? :eek:

jank

The Huff post on a good day makes the Guardian look like Fox News.

Black Swan

Back on topic...

About News suggests that there are 6 frontrunners for 2016 president: Republican Ted Cruz, Democrat Hillary Clinton, Republican Chris Christie, Democrat Elizabeth Warren, Republican Marco Rubio, Democrat Julián Castro, and Republican Jeb Bush. Although it's still very early in American politics, today I would guess that it will be a very close race between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, with the independent voters deciding the race.

dublinman1990

Chris Christie will have his chances as becoming president blown to pieces when he tries fighting these type of allegations.