Total Posts:94|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Three Republicans Announce 2016 Candidacy

Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 6:21:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Three candidates from the Republican Party have already announced their candidacy for President. They are:

Ted Cruz
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio

The Democrats, on the other hand, only have an elderly woman who's announced their run, as opposed to three young, dynamic candidates who are ready to take on the elections. It seems that the GOP has gotten an early start on 2016. What do you think?
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 6:45:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 6:21:59 PM, Varrack wrote:
Three candidates from the Republican Party have already announced their candidacy for President. They are:

Ted Cruz
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio

The Democrats, on the other hand, only have an elderly woman who's announced their run, as opposed to three young, dynamic candidates who are ready to take on the elections. It seems that the GOP has gotten an early start on 2016. What do you think?

Well.... Two of them are really bad candidates.

Wrong. Vermin Supreme has also announced his run... in 2014 :P
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 7:10:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Now time will tell if they sell out their constituency like they always do. The Republicans have yet to figure out how to prevent the Democrats from establishing the campaign narrative. This will be Barack Obama 2.0 The Republicans have already set themselves up to be on a constant defense with the Gender card. They are going to spend the whole campaign being accused of picking on Hillary because she is a woman just like they did last time with Obama only they were picking on him because he was black. It is all so predictable. Nothing of any substance will ever be addressed by either party but rather it will be like grade school children calling each other poopy head on the playground.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 7:28:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 6:45:34 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:21:59 PM, Varrack wrote:
Three candidates from the Republican Party have already announced their candidacy for President. They are:

Ted Cruz
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio

The Democrats, on the other hand, only have an elderly woman who's announced their run, as opposed to three young, dynamic candidates who are ready to take on the elections. It seems that the GOP has gotten an early start on 2016. What do you think?

Well.... Two of them are really bad candidates.

How so?

Wrong. Vermin Supreme has also announced his run... in 2014 :P

Lol
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 7:30:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 7:10:49 PM, sadolite wrote:
Now time will tell if they sell out their constituency like they always do. The Republicans have yet to figure out how to prevent the Democrats from establishing the campaign narrative. This will be Barack Obama 2.0 The Republicans have already set themselves up to be on a constant defense with the Gender card. They are going to spend the whole campaign being accused of picking on Hillary because she is a woman just like they did last time with Obama only they were picking on him because he was black. It is all so predictable. Nothing of any substance will ever be addressed by either party but rather it will be like grade school children calling each other poopy head on the playground.

We'll see. That may be the case for Hillary, but this time there are some fresh people who are willing to run. Not everything is "really predictable".
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 7:47:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 7:30:25 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 4/16/2015 7:10:49 PM, sadolite wrote:
Now time will tell if they sell out their constituency like they always do. The Republicans have yet to figure out how to prevent the Democrats from establishing the campaign narrative. This will be Barack Obama 2.0 The Republicans have already set themselves up to be on a constant defense with the Gender card. They are going to spend the whole campaign being accused of picking on Hillary because she is a woman just like they did last time with Obama only they were picking on him because he was black. It is all so predictable. Nothing of any substance will ever be addressed by either party but rather it will be like grade school children calling each other poopy head on the playground.

We'll see. That may be the case for Hillary, but this time there are some fresh people who are willing to run. Not everything is "really predictable".

Well I am basing it on 30 years of history of the republican party selling out on everything. All we do as a nation is sink deeper and deeper into the abyss of socialism. The Democrats didn't do it by themselves. and I see absolutely no evidence to suggest anything is going to change. The very first thing the Republican congress did when it won in the last election is cave and sell us all out. Not once but twice. What's changed? The president has now power over the congress, that is if it is a president that believes in the constitution and the rule of law.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Bennett91
Posts: 4,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 7:55:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 6:21:59 PM, Varrack wrote:
Three candidates from the Republican Party have already announced their candidacy for President. They are:

Ted Cruz

Blatant theocrat who will sell the US out to the highest bidding corporation

Rand Paul

Subtle theocrat who won't stop the US from being sold to the highest bidding corporation.

Marco Rubio

Wannabe GOP Obama knock off.

The Democrats, on the other hand, only have an elderly woman who's announced their run, as opposed to three young, dynamic candidates who are ready to take on the elections. It seems that the GOP has gotten an early start on 2016. What do you think?

Hillary: Typical Washington insider who will still work with corporations to get richer.
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 8:03:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
an elderly woman who is also crushing them all in the polls....I don't really like Hillary at all, but let's at least be honest here. I don't expect it to last, though. She's a pretty awful candidate
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 8:07:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 6:45:34 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:21:59 PM, Varrack wrote:
Three candidates from the Republican Party have already announced their candidacy for President. They are:

Ted Cruz
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio

The Democrats, on the other hand, only have an elderly woman who's announced their run, as opposed to three young, dynamic candidates who are ready to take on the elections. It seems that the GOP has gotten an early start on 2016. What do you think?

Well.... Two of them are really bad candidates.

Wrong. Vermin Supreme has also announced his run... in 2014 :P

"I will faithfully execute all Americans."

-Vermin Supreme
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 8:19:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 8:03:02 PM, thett3 wrote:
an elderly woman who is also crushing them all in the polls....I don't really like Hillary at all, but let's at least be honest here. I don't expect it to last, though. She's a pretty awful candidate

Maybe, but not one of those guys can unseat her.
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 8:26:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 8:19:48 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/16/2015 8:03:02 PM, thett3 wrote:
an elderly woman who is also crushing them all in the polls....I don't really like Hillary at all, but let's at least be honest here. I don't expect it to last, though. She's a pretty awful candidate

Maybe, but not one of those guys can unseat her.

Rubio is actually a pretty electable guy. I'm pretty sure Bush will get the nomination, though. So four of the last 5 presidents will have been Bush's or Clinton's. Democracy.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 8:27:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 8:26:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 8:19:48 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/16/2015 8:03:02 PM, thett3 wrote:
an elderly woman who is also crushing them all in the polls....I don't really like Hillary at all, but let's at least be honest here. I don't expect it to last, though. She's a pretty awful candidate

Maybe, but not one of those guys can unseat her.

Rubio is actually a pretty electable guy. I'm pretty sure Bush will get the nomination, though. So four of the last 5 presidents will have been Bush's or Clinton's. Democracy.

Well, the first several US presidents were from Virginia, and that's basically the same thing, right? Right?
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 8:47:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 6:21:59 PM, Varrack wrote:
Three candidates from the Republican Party have already announced their candidacy for President. They are:

Ted Cruz

I don't think Ted Cruz can win, but I don't think he'd be blown out. He's a good speaker and debater.

Rand Paul

Would probably be the most interesting candidate just because his policies are so unusual , but is my last choice at the moment.

Marco Rubio

Best candidate in the field. Best speaker the GOP has, is young, and has a great story. I think he can beat anyone the Dems put out.

The Democrats, on the other hand, only have an elderly woman who's announced their run, as opposed to three young, dynamic candidates who are ready to take on the elections. It seems that the GOP has gotten an early start on 2016. What do you think?

Democrats are in a very bad situation. They have Hillary Clinton (a candidate who ran well behind Al Gore that year, and who lost in 2008) , and that's it. I mean, does anyone seriously think Martin O'Malley (a governor who did such a bad job that Maryland elected a Republican governor for just the second time in 50 years or so) can win? Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders wouldn't win many states, save maybe New England (minus Maine and New Hampshire), New York, and the Left Coast. They have dug themselves into a very big hole and it might take decades to recover.
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 8:52:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 8:03:02 PM, thett3 wrote:
an elderly woman who is also crushing them all in the polls....I don't really like Hillary at all, but let's at least be honest here. I don't expect it to last, though. She's a pretty awful candidate

The reason she's crushing them all in the polls is because 1) she's a woman and 2) she's the only candidate they've got. Polls don't really mean much and besides, the election's 19 months away. Once the GOP nominates a candidate that person's ratings will go up as the whole party focuses on him or her, so I'm not really thinking Hillary's going to win this easy.
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 8:52:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 8:47:22 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:21:59 PM, Varrack wrote:
Three candidates from the Republican Party have already announced their candidacy for President. They are:

Ted Cruz

I don't think Ted Cruz can win, but I don't think he'd be blown out. He's a good speaker and debater.

Rand Paul

Would probably be the most interesting candidate just because his policies are so unusual , but is my last choice at the moment.

Marco Rubio

Best candidate in the field. Best speaker the GOP has, is young, and has a great story. I think he can beat anyone the Dems put out.

The Democrats, on the other hand, only have an elderly woman who's announced their run, as opposed to three young, dynamic candidates who are ready to take on the elections. It seems that the GOP has gotten an early start on 2016. What do you think?

Democrats are in a very bad situation. They have Hillary Clinton (a candidate who ran well behind Al Gore that year, and who lost in 2008) , and that's it. I mean, does anyone seriously think Martin O'Malley (a governor who did such a bad job that Maryland elected a Republican governor for just the second time in 50 years or so) can win? Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders wouldn't win many states, save maybe New England (minus Maine and New Hampshire), New York, and the Left Coast. They have dug themselves into a very big hole and it might take decades to recover.


Okay you have your partisan goggles on lol. Hillary is a very bad candidate in many ways, but she still has a really good shot of winning--probably greater than chance. There's no way that the 2016 election will destroy Democrats for decades...Republicans had the most reviled president in recent history followed immediately by one of the most incompetent candidates ever and by 2015 they essentially control everything except for the presidency. Republicans are *way* overrepresented in this country...if any party is in danger of a short term collapse, it's the red tribe mate.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 8:54:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 8:52:15 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 4/16/2015 8:03:02 PM, thett3 wrote:
an elderly woman who is also crushing them all in the polls....I don't really like Hillary at all, but let's at least be honest here. I don't expect it to last, though. She's a pretty awful candidate

The reason she's crushing them all in the polls is because 1) she's a woman and 2) she's the only candidate they've got. Polls don't really mean much and besides, the election's 19 months away. Once the GOP nominates a candidate that person's ratings will go up as the whole party focuses on him or her, so I'm not really thinking Hillary's going to win this easy.

No, you're definitely right. We have no clue what it's going to look like on election day...but she's winning right now. So it's pretty crazy to be like "oh man democrats are SO screwed" when they're currently winning in the court of public opinion
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:03:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 8:52:16 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 8:47:22 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:21:59 PM, Varrack wrote:
Three candidates from the Republican Party have already announced their candidacy for President. They are:

Ted Cruz

I don't think Ted Cruz can win, but I don't think he'd be blown out. He's a good speaker and debater.

Rand Paul

Would probably be the most interesting candidate just because his policies are so unusual , but is my last choice at the moment.

Marco Rubio

Best candidate in the field. Best speaker the GOP has, is young, and has a great story. I think he can beat anyone the Dems put out.

The Democrats, on the other hand, only have an elderly woman who's announced their run, as opposed to three young, dynamic candidates who are ready to take on the elections. It seems that the GOP has gotten an early start on 2016. What do you think?

Democrats are in a very bad situation. They have Hillary Clinton (a candidate who ran well behind Al Gore that year, and who lost in 2008) , and that's it. I mean, does anyone seriously think Martin O'Malley (a governor who did such a bad job that Maryland elected a Republican governor for just the second time in 50 years or so) can win? Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders wouldn't win many states, save maybe New England (minus Maine and New Hampshire), New York, and the Left Coast. They have dug themselves into a very big hole and it might take decades to recover.


Okay you have your partisan goggles on lol. Hillary is a very bad candidate in many ways, but she still has a really good shot of winning--probably greater than chance. There's no way that the 2016 election will destroy Democrats for decades...Republicans had the most reviled president in recent history followed immediately by one of the most incompetent candidates ever and by 2015 they essentially control everything except for the presidency. Republicans are *way* overrepresented in this country...if any party is in danger of a short term collapse, it's the red tribe mate.

That's the thing, though - Republicans have more than enough candidates, including moderates, to last for quite a while. Their utter dominance in state legislatures and the House gives a fantastic springboard to higher office in those states. This was the secret to Democratic dominance - for decades, they could compete in red states because they were in control of the legislatures in most southern states, even up to 2008. They almost controlled the Texas House of Representatives (!!!) in 2008.

Without that channel, they have no way to bring new candidates to ballot at the state level, limiting their options even more at the federal level. Without federal candidates, their presidential field dries up. That's what I mean by they have no bench - what viable alternatives to Hillary do they have? None. And there are virtually none at the state or federal level to pick up, either.

In contrast, Republicans are in control of so many state legislatures and have so many governorships (over 30, at the moment) that they have a surplus of candidates to run. They can be much more competitive in federal and presidential elections as a result.

This isn't partisan stuff. It's fairly basic electoral math.
John95
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:09:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 7:10:49 PM, sadolite wrote:
Now time will tell if they sell out their constituency like they always do. The Republicans have yet to figure out how to prevent the Democrats from establishing the campaign narrative. This will be Barack Obama 2.0 The Republicans have already set themselves up to be on a constant defense with the Gender card. They are going to spend the whole campaign being accused of picking on Hillary because she is a woman just like they did last time with Obama only they were picking on him because he was black. It is all so predictable. Nothing of any substance will ever be addressed by either party but rather it will be like grade school children calling each other poopy head on the playground.

Exactly!!
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:10:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:03:53 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 8:52:16 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 8:47:22 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:21:59 PM, Varrack wrote:
Three candidates from the Republican Party have already announced their candidacy for President. They are:

Ted Cruz

I don't think Ted Cruz can win, but I don't think he'd be blown out. He's a good speaker and debater.

Rand Paul

Would probably be the most interesting candidate just because his policies are so unusual , but is my last choice at the moment.

Marco Rubio

Best candidate in the field. Best speaker the GOP has, is young, and has a great story. I think he can beat anyone the Dems put out.

The Democrats, on the other hand, only have an elderly woman who's announced their run, as opposed to three young, dynamic candidates who are ready to take on the elections. It seems that the GOP has gotten an early start on 2016. What do you think?

Democrats are in a very bad situation. They have Hillary Clinton (a candidate who ran well behind Al Gore that year, and who lost in 2008) , and that's it. I mean, does anyone seriously think Martin O'Malley (a governor who did such a bad job that Maryland elected a Republican governor for just the second time in 50 years or so) can win? Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders wouldn't win many states, save maybe New England (minus Maine and New Hampshire), New York, and the Left Coast. They have dug themselves into a very big hole and it might take decades to recover.


Okay you have your partisan goggles on lol. Hillary is a very bad candidate in many ways, but she still has a really good shot of winning--probably greater than chance. There's no way that the 2016 election will destroy Democrats for decades...Republicans had the most reviled president in recent history followed immediately by one of the most incompetent candidates ever and by 2015 they essentially control everything except for the presidency. Republicans are *way* overrepresented in this country...if any party is in danger of a short term collapse, it's the red tribe mate.

That's the thing, though - Republicans have more than enough candidates, including moderates, to last for quite a while. Their utter dominance in state legislatures and the House gives a fantastic springboard to higher office in those states. This was the secret to Democratic dominance - for decades, they could compete in red states because they were in control of the legislatures in most southern states, even up to 2008. They almost controlled the Texas House of Representatives (!!!) in 2008.

Without that channel, they have no way to bring new candidates to ballot at the state level, limiting their options even more at the federal level. Without federal candidates, their presidential field dries up. That's what I mean by they have no bench - what viable alternatives to Hillary do they have? None. And there are virtually none at the state or federal level to pick up, either.

In contrast, Republicans are in control of so many state legislatures and have so many governorships (over 30, at the moment) that they have a surplus of candidates to run. They can be much more competitive in federal and presidential elections as a result.

This isn't partisan stuff. It's fairly basic electoral math.

Meh. Democrats will be fine. They aren't going to pluck out another Obama out of mid air, but he really was a perfect, once in a lifetime type candidate. I can see your argument that the Republicans are likely to have an edge in candidate quality since the Democratic bench is so thin, but you forget how quickly fortunes can change in politics. I don't think we'll be seeing a Democratic equivalent of Bob Dole or John McCain, but even if we do Democrats have such an advantage in public opinion around the actual issues that even another Al Gore would have a good chance of winning.

Candidate quality really isn't nearly as important as you think it is
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:13:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 8:47:22 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:21:59 PM, Varrack wrote:
Three candidates from the Republican Party have already announced their candidacy for President. They are:

Ted Cruz

I don't think Ted Cruz can win, but I don't think he'd be blown out. He's a good speaker and debater.

Rand Paul

Would probably be the most interesting candidate just because his policies are so unusual , but is my last choice at the moment.

Marco Rubio

Best candidate in the field. Best speaker the GOP has, is young, and has a great story. I think he can beat anyone the Dems put out.

The Democrats, on the other hand, only have an elderly woman who's announced their run, as opposed to three young, dynamic candidates who are ready to take on the elections. It seems that the GOP has gotten an early start on 2016. What do you think?

Democrats are in a very bad situation. They have Hillary Clinton (a candidate who ran well behind Al Gore that year, and who lost in 2008) , and that's it. I mean, does anyone seriously think Martin O'Malley (a governor who did such a bad job that Maryland elected a Republican governor for just the second time in 50 years or so) can win? Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders wouldn't win many states, save maybe New England (minus Maine and New Hampshire), New York, and the Left Coast. They have dug themselves into a very big hole and it might take decades to recover.

With Obama's low approval rating and their Congress losses last year, they don't really have much hope with or without Hillary. The election is still a long ways away yet there are already noticeable GOP candidates spring up, including those who've showed interest like Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, etc. I think they may be able to pull this off if the party can manage to agree enough on one candidate to propel him/her into the White House.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:13:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Scott Walker 2016
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:14:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 8:47:22 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:21:59 PM, Varrack wrote:
Three candidates from the Republican Party have already announced their candidacy for President. They are:

Ted Cruz

I don't think Ted Cruz can win, but I don't think he'd be blown out. He's a good speaker and debater.

Rand Paul

Would probably be the most interesting candidate just because his policies are so unusual , but is my last choice at the moment.

Marco Rubio

Best candidate in the field. Best speaker the GOP has, is young, and has a great story. I think he can beat anyone the Dems put out.

The Democrats, on the other hand, only have an elderly woman who's announced their run, as opposed to three young, dynamic candidates who are ready to take on the elections. It seems that the GOP has gotten an early start on 2016. What do you think?

Democrats are in a very bad situation. They have Hillary Clinton (a candidate who ran well behind Al Gore that year, and who lost in 2008) , and that's it. I mean, does anyone seriously think Martin O'Malley (a governor who did such a bad job that Maryland elected a Republican governor for just the second time in 50 years or so) can win? Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders wouldn't win many states, save maybe New England (minus Maine and New Hampshire), New York, and the Left Coast. They have dug themselves into a very big hole and it might take decades to recover.

I wouldn't rule out Jim Webb from... Virginia.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:16:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:13:16 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Scott Walker 2016

First he needs to announce that he's running..
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:24:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:16:21 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 4/16/2015 9:13:16 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Scott Walker 2016

First he needs to announce that he's running..

Which I hope he does.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:29:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:10:22 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 9:03:53 PM, TN05 wrote:
That's the thing, though - Republicans have more than enough candidates, including moderates, to last for quite a while. Their utter dominance in state legislatures and the House gives a fantastic springboard to higher office in those states. This was the secret to Democratic dominance - for decades, they could compete in red states because they were in control of the legislatures in most southern states, even up to 2008. They almost controlled the Texas House of Representatives (!!!) in 2008.

Without that channel, they have no way to bring new candidates to ballot at the state level, limiting their options even more at the federal level. Without federal candidates, their presidential field dries up. That's what I mean by they have no bench - what viable alternatives to Hillary do they have? None. And there are virtually none at the state or federal level to pick up, either.

In contrast, Republicans are in control of so many state legislatures and have so many governorships (over 30, at the moment) that they have a surplus of candidates to run. They can be much more competitive in federal and presidential elections as a result.

This isn't partisan stuff. It's fairly basic electoral math.

Meh. Democrats will be fine. They aren't going to pluck out another Obama out of mid air, but he really was a perfect, once in a lifetime type candidate.

And even with that perfect candidate, they only got 53% of the national vote - less than George H. W. Bush got in 1988.

I can see your argument that the Republicans are likely to have an edge in candidate quality since the Democratic bench is so thin, but you forget how quickly fortunes can change in politics. I don't think we'll be seeing a Democratic equivalent of Bob Dole or John McCain, but even if we do Democrats have such an advantage in public opinion around the actual issues that even another Al Gore would have a good chance of winning.

The thing is, though, Algore was competitive in the South. He won 47% of the vote in Tennessee and 45% in Arkansas, Louisiana, and West Virginia. Today those states give less than 40% to Democrats. Even an issues-oriented Democrat would be hard-pressed to equal that margin. And that's the problem - Republicans are becoming increasingly dominant in rural areas and suburbs in vital swing states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Democrats, in contrast, have basically maxed out their performance in urban areas.

In Pennsylvania, for instance, they have maxed out to win 80% of Philadelphia and at least 60% in the suburban Philly counties. In the Pittsburgh metro area, however, they are losing votes - they actually lost the Pittsburgh metro area in 2012, and they actually lost votes in Allegheny County (home of Pittsburgh) from 2004 to 2008, despite the Obama effect. If Allegheny County flips, and the Philadelphia metro counties slip, Democrats are screwed and Republicans could win the Presidency without Ohio and/or Virginia.

Candidate quality really isn't nearly as important as you think it is

To a certain extend I agree. If the Democrats nominated a goat, they'd get 46% of the vote; Republicans got 46% in 2008 with a bad candidate. That being said, can a goat or bad candidate win when the other side has vastly superior candidates? No.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:32:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:14:15 PM, Fly wrote:
At 4/16/2015 8:47:22 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:21:59 PM, Varrack wrote:
Three candidates from the Republican Party have already announced their candidacy for President. They are:

Ted Cruz

I don't think Ted Cruz can win, but I don't think he'd be blown out. He's a good speaker and debater.

Rand Paul

Would probably be the most interesting candidate just because his policies are so unusual , but is my last choice at the moment.

Marco Rubio

Best candidate in the field. Best speaker the GOP has, is young, and has a great story. I think he can beat anyone the Dems put out.

The Democrats, on the other hand, only have an elderly woman who's announced their run, as opposed to three young, dynamic candidates who are ready to take on the elections. It seems that the GOP has gotten an early start on 2016. What do you think?

Democrats are in a very bad situation. They have Hillary Clinton (a candidate who ran well behind Al Gore that year, and who lost in 2008) , and that's it. I mean, does anyone seriously think Martin O'Malley (a governor who did such a bad job that Maryland elected a Republican governor for just the second time in 50 years or so) can win? Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders wouldn't win many states, save maybe New England (minus Maine and New Hampshire), New York, and the Left Coast. They have dug themselves into a very big hole and it might take decades to recover.

I wouldn't rule out Jim Webb from... Virginia.

He has no name recognition.
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:38:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:29:38 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 9:10:22 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 9:03:53 PM, TN05 wrote:
That's the thing, though - Republicans have more than enough candidates, including moderates, to last for quite a while. Their utter dominance in state legislatures and the House gives a fantastic springboard to higher office in those states. This was the secret to Democratic dominance - for decades, they could compete in red states because they were in control of the legislatures in most southern states, even up to 2008. They almost controlled the Texas House of Representatives (!!!) in 2008.

Without that channel, they have no way to bring new candidates to ballot at the state level, limiting their options even more at the federal level. Without federal candidates, their presidential field dries up. That's what I mean by they have no bench - what viable alternatives to Hillary do they have? None. And there are virtually none at the state or federal level to pick up, either.

In contrast, Republicans are in control of so many state legislatures and have so many governorships (over 30, at the moment) that they have a surplus of candidates to run. They can be much more competitive in federal and presidential elections as a result.

This isn't partisan stuff. It's fairly basic electoral math.

Meh. Democrats will be fine. They aren't going to pluck out another Obama out of mid air, but he really was a perfect, once in a lifetime type candidate.

And even with that perfect candidate, they only got 53% of the national vote - less than George H. W. Bush got in 1988.

53-46 is a pretty insane margin by modern standards, dude. There aren't nearly as many persuadable voters as there were back in the 80's. Back in the day when most Northerners remembered voting Republican and the Southern democrats were still a thing...people weren't nearly as partisan then for a variety of reasons.

I can see your argument that the Republicans are likely to have an edge in candidate quality since the Democratic bench is so thin, but you forget how quickly fortunes can change in politics. I don't think we'll be seeing a Democratic equivalent of Bob Dole or John McCain, but even if we do Democrats have such an advantage in public opinion around the actual issues that even another Al Gore would have a good chance of winning.

The thing is, though, Algore was competitive in the South. He won 47% of the vote in Tennessee and 45% in Arkansas, Louisiana, and West Virginia. Today those states give less than 40% to Democrats. Even an issues-oriented Democrat would be hard-pressed to equal that margin. And that's the problem - Republicans are becoming increasingly dominant in rural areas and suburbs in vital swing states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Democrats, in contrast, have basically maxed out their performance in urban areas.

In Pennsylvania, for instance, they have maxed out to win 80% of Philadelphia and at least 60% in the suburban Philly counties. In the Pittsburgh metro area, however, they are losing votes - they actually lost the Pittsburgh metro area in 2012, and they actually lost votes in Allegheny County (home of Pittsburgh) from 2004 to 2008, despite the Obama effect. If Allegheny County flips, and the Philadelphia metro counties slip, Democrats are screwed and Republicans could win the Presidency without Ohio and/or Virginia.

I agree with this analysis very much. I don't buy the "blue wall" electoral college theory, and a lot of states that used to be competitive or even locks for democrats (think West Virginia) are long gone due to the collapse of support for the party among whites. As much as it worries me to see more racial splintering in this country, if Republicans continue to improve their margins among whites, especially working class whites, those lily white light blue states could very easily flip. People talking about the emerging Democratic majority don't typically consider that Republicans haven't yet hit rock bottom on the number of white voters yet. Sad and chilling, but that's the way we're heading.


Candidate quality really isn't nearly as important as you think it is

To a certain extend I agree. If the Democrats nominated a goat, they'd get 46% of the vote; Republicans got 46% in 2008 with a bad candidate. That being said, can a goat or bad candidate win when the other side has vastly superior candidates? No.

True, true. But the candidate only has to be so not bad...Hillary Clinton makes the cut, but I would agree with you that in this cycle no one else probably would. I just don't see that lasting...at most the democrats will have bad candidates for another election, but not decades into the future.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:42:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:24:03 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 4/16/2015 9:16:21 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 4/16/2015 9:13:16 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Scott Walker 2016

First he needs to announce that he's running..

Which I hope he does.

Of course you do :p
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:49:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 7:28:19 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:45:34 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:21:59 PM, Varrack wrote:
Three candidates from the Republican Party have already announced their candidacy for President. They are:

Ted Cruz
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio

The Democrats, on the other hand, only have an elderly woman who's announced their run, as opposed to three young, dynamic candidates who are ready to take on the elections. It seems that the GOP has gotten an early start on 2016. What do you think?

Well.... Two of them are really bad candidates.

How so?

Cruz is a loudmouth and is a sure way to have Hillary elected and Rand Paul is way to libertarian for me. I like his views on the WOT, but I dislike his foreign policy and his incessant need to "audit" the Fed. I support these people, in this order:

1) Marco Rubio
2) Rick Santorum
3) Jeb Bush

I like Carson, but he is kinda soft on gun rights. And he has no political experience.

This forum has also failed to capture the possibility of Chris Christie running--and I really do think he has a chance. He isn't my first choice at all, but he is going to run (probably) and I do think he could win--and he has a chance in NH, especially.


Wrong. Vermin Supreme has also announced his run... in 2014 :P

Lol
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:55:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:38:32 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 9:29:38 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 9:10:22 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 9:03:53 PM, TN05 wrote:
That's the thing, though - Republicans have more than enough candidates, including moderates, to last for quite a while. Their utter dominance in state legislatures and the House gives a fantastic springboard to higher office in those states. This was the secret to Democratic dominance - for decades, they could compete in red states because they were in control of the legislatures in most southern states, even up to 2008. They almost controlled the Texas House of Representatives (!!!) in 2008.

Without that channel, they have no way to bring new candidates to ballot at the state level, limiting their options even more at the federal level. Without federal candidates, their presidential field dries up. That's what I mean by they have no bench - what viable alternatives to Hillary do they have? None. And there are virtually none at the state or federal level to pick up, either.

In contrast, Republicans are in control of so many state legislatures and have so many governorships (over 30, at the moment) that they have a surplus of candidates to run. They can be much more competitive in federal and presidential elections as a result.

This isn't partisan stuff. It's fairly basic electoral math.

Meh. Democrats will be fine. They aren't going to pluck out another Obama out of mid air, but he really was a perfect, once in a lifetime type candidate.

And even with that perfect candidate, they only got 53% of the national vote - less than George H. W. Bush got in 1988.

53-46 is a pretty insane margin by modern standards, dude. There aren't nearly as many persuadable voters as there were back in the 80's. Back in the day when most Northerners remembered voting Republican and the Southern democrats were still a thing...people weren't nearly as partisan then for a variety of reasons.

It's a very small sample size, though. 7% is less than either Clinton election, and that's as recent as 1996. We have yet to see if that was a re-aligning election or not.

I can see your argument that the Republicans are likely to have an edge in candidate quality since the Democratic bench is so thin, but you forget how quickly fortunes can change in politics. I don't think we'll be seeing a Democratic equivalent of Bob Dole or John McCain, but even if we do Democrats have such an advantage in public opinion around the actual issues that even another Al Gore would have a good chance of winning.

The thing is, though, Algore was competitive in the South. He won 47% of the vote in Tennessee and 45% in Arkansas, Louisiana, and West Virginia. Today those states give less than 40% to Democrats. Even an issues-oriented Democrat would be hard-pressed to equal that margin. And that's the problem - Republicans are becoming increasingly dominant in rural areas and suburbs in vital swing states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Democrats, in contrast, have basically maxed out their performance in urban areas.

In Pennsylvania, for instance, they have maxed out to win 80% of Philadelphia and at least 60% in the suburban Philly counties. In the Pittsburgh metro area, however, they are losing votes - they actually lost the Pittsburgh metro area in 2012, and they actually lost votes in Allegheny County (home of Pittsburgh) from 2004 to 2008, despite the Obama effect. If Allegheny County flips, and the Philadelphia metro counties slip, Democrats are screwed and Republicans could win the Presidency without Ohio and/or Virginia.

I agree with this analysis very much. I don't buy the "blue wall" electoral college theory, and a lot of states that used to be competitive or even locks for democrats (think West Virginia) are long gone due to the collapse of support for the party among whites. As much as it worries me to see more racial splintering in this country, if Republicans continue to improve their margins among whites, especially working class whites, those lily white light blue states could very easily flip. People talking about the emerging Democratic majority don't typically consider that Republicans haven't yet hit rock bottom on the number of white voters yet. Sad and chilling, but that's the way we're heading.

Exactly. Basically what the Obama coalition requires for a slight re-election victory (2012) is:
1. Women voters turn out in substantial numbers, and lean heavily Democratic.
2. Have black voters turn out in larger numbers than their population share, AND vote at least 90% Democrat.
3. Achieve at least 70% support among Latino voters.
4. Win heavily among 18-29 voters.

If you compare the exit polls of 2004 and 2012 (fairly similar margins of victory in both cases), you get the following:

2004:
Women (54% of voters) - 51% Kerry
Blacks (11% of voters) - 88% Kerry
Hispanics (8% of voters) - 53% Kerry
18-29 (17% of voters) - 54% Kerry

2012:
Women (53% of voters) - 55% Obama
Blacks (13% of voters) - 93% Obama
Hispanics (10% of voters) - 71% Obama
18-29 (19% of voters) - 60% Obama.

Do I think that support is permanent? No, it clearly is not. The 2012 women vote was attributable to the 'war on women'; the black and youth vote was attributable to high popularity for Obama; the Hispanic vote was attributable to 'self-deportation'. Without Obama, all of these numbers drop substantially - both in margin of victory, and overall turnout. And keep in mind, these insane margins of victory only ensured a 4% margin of victory. With the party hemorrhaging white voters and men at record pace they cannot afford such a drop.

Candidate quality really isn't nearly as important as you think it is

To a certain extend I agree. If the Democrats nominated a goat, they'd get 46% of the vote; Republicans got 46% in 2008 with a bad candidate. That being said, can a goat or bad candidate win when the other side has vastly superior candidates? No.

True, true. But the candidate only has to be so not bad...Hillary Clinton makes the cut, but I would agree with you that in this cycle no one else probably would. I just don't see that lasting...at most the democrats will have bad candidates for another election, but not decades into the future.

That's fair. Benches can replenish, but first they have to win back statehouses. Without the state-level organization in purple and red states, they have little room to groom moderate-appealing candidates.