|
|
Post by Action Ace on May 3, 2015 16:21:09 GMT -5
Ooh, a political topic. Are we up for some civil discussion? Ooh, let's find out.  The only Democrat I know well enough in real life to know what he thinks about the primaries is my dad and he likes her. He is still mad she lost the nomination in 2008 to "that CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED!" He's a lifelong union member and while he fits with the Democrats on economic issues he most assuredly does not on the social issues. He's part of the older establishment wing of the Democratic Party that likes Hilary (and Bill) and will form her base for the 2016 primary campaign. I'm not sure he's even aware of Sanders, Warren or O'Malley yet. As for the forum's Tea Party representative, I have already given a campaign contribution to Ted Cruz and if Scott Walker gets into the race he'll get one too. "Not Jeb Bush" would be another strong contender to get some money. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
|
Post by shaxper on May 3, 2015 16:34:40 GMT -5
Ooh, a political topic. Are we up for some civil discussion? Ooh, let's find out. The only Democrat I know well enough in real life to know what he thinks about the primaries is my dad and he likes her. He is still mad she lost the nomination in 2008 to "that CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED!" He's a lifelong union member and while he fits with the Democrats on economic issues he most assuredly does not on the social issues. He's part of the older establishment wing of the Democratic Party that likes Hilary (and Bill) and will form her base for the 2016 primary campaign. I'm not sure he's even aware of Sanders, Warren or O'Malley yet. As for the forum's Tea Party representative, I have already given a campaign contribution to Ted Cruz and if Scott Walker gets into the race he'll get one too. "Not Jeb Bush" would be another strong contender to get some money. So how does your pro-union dad feel about you supporting Scott Walker? That's got to make for interesting discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on May 3, 2015 17:30:26 GMT -5
Ooh, let's find out. The only Democrat I know well enough in real life to know what he thinks about the primaries is my dad and he likes her. He is still mad she lost the nomination in 2008 to "that CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED!" He's a lifelong union member and while he fits with the Democrats on economic issues he most assuredly does not on the social issues. He's part of the older establishment wing of the Democratic Party that likes Hilary (and Bill) and will form her base for the 2016 primary campaign. I'm not sure he's even aware of Sanders, Warren or O'Malley yet. As for the forum's Tea Party representative, I have already given a campaign contribution to Ted Cruz and if Scott Walker gets into the race he'll get one too. "Not Jeb Bush" would be another strong contender to get some money. So how does your pro-union dad feel about you supporting Scott Walker? That's got to make for interesting discussion. Whenever he throws the "you can't be my son" card at me, I remind him that his parents were lifelong Republicans that voted against FDR in four straight elections. They thought the same way about him. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
|
Post by shaxper on May 3, 2015 17:32:02 GMT -5
So how does your pro-union dad feel about you supporting Scott Walker? That's got to make for interesting discussion. Whenever he throws the "you can't be my son" card at me, I remind him that his parents were lifelong Republicans that voted against FDR in four straight elections. They thought the same way about him. Two generations of Alex P. Keatons. Wow. |
|
|
|
Post by Jasoomian on May 3, 2015 17:38:04 GMT -5
Jim Webb doesn't seem very impressed by her.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 3, 2015 22:05:19 GMT -5
I would have definitely suported Elizabeth Warren if she'd run. I have to speak up on this, as a Massachusetts resident that lived through her running for office already. I wouldn't say I'm a Democrat... I feel I'm a true independent. My biggest fear for 2016 is we get Hillary vs. Jeb Bush... we might as well start handing out Duchies if that happens. Of all the potential candidates right now, I guess I'd take Gov. Christie, but I wouldn't like it that much. I like Cory Booker alot, but I think it's too soon for him.... maybe 2020. And yes, I know how weird that is that they both are from New Jersey of all places. Back to task, Elizabeth Warren is NOT presidential material. There is documented evidence that she claimed to be Native American to get scholarships for college (or to get accepted, one or the other), when faced with it, she had some really lame 'but my grandfather always said that' line. Then there's the fact that she defended a big corporation (I don't recall which), that was refusing to pay people's medical bills from Asbestos poisioning. She got eaten alive by Scott Brown on their first debate, and it was only when Brown essentially decided he'd already won and phoned it in on the last one that she won by the thinnest of margins despite Massachusetts being the bluest of blue states. Just because she's a female democrat from Massachusetts doesn't make her a good choice. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2015 23:29:53 GMT -5
If Christie had run directly in the aftermath of Sandy, he would have gotten a lot of bi-partisan support in a general election, but the bridge corruption scandals and other boneheaded/questionable things he has done since then has pissed away any goodwill he garnered from his actions during the wake of the hurricane and made him almost toxic on a national level, not just in his home state.
Unfortunately nominations will not come down to the personal attributes or qualities of the candidates but how well they can be branded on a national level to appeal the the small fraction of the American population that turns out and participates int he elections. Less than half of all eligible Americans are registered to vote and a good turnout in a presidential election is if 1/3 to 40% of registered voters actually turn out to vote, so you are looking at a "majority" that actually consists of of 18-20% of Americans eligible to vote to carry an election, which means the party machines are going to put forward and support candidates that appeal to the voting demographic, not necessarily the general populace. Primary turn outs are even less, so its candidates that most likely appeal to the hardcore voter that are going to prosper, not outsiders Sanders (or others in the past who have tried to run on a more independent platform than the party norm). Of all the candidates for both parties who announce they are running in 2016, there will be 2-3 who have an actual chance with maybe one Cinderella story capturing the media attention keeping them around longer than they might otherwise be viable, but in the end it will be obvious who the viable candidates are almost from the onset, and currently Hilary is the only viable Dem candidate who has stepped forward (not that I am a fan) and I think only Jeb is viable among the GOP candidates so far (not that I like him much either).
Unfortunately grass roots get mowed down by the money machine in the current political climate in the States more often than not, and the candidates who succeed are the micromanaged well groomed ones who manage to stay scandal free for the most part during the run to the White House.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by macattack on May 3, 2015 23:41:39 GMT -5
If Christie had run directly in the aftermath of Sandy, he would have gotten a lot of bi-partisan support in a general election, but the bridge corruption scandals and other boneheaded/questionable things he has done since then has pissed away any goodwill he garnered from his actions during the wake of the hurricane and made him almost toxic on a national level, not just in his home state. Unfortunately nominations will not come down to the personal attributes or qualities of the candidates but how well they can be branded on a national level to appeal the the small fraction of the American population that turns out and participates int he elections. Less than half of all eligible Americans are registered to vote and a good turnout in a presidential election is if 1/3 to 40% of registered voters actually turn out to vote, so you are looking at a "majority" that actually consists of of 18-20% of Americans eligible to vote to carry an election, which means the party machines are going to put forward and support candidates that appeal to the voting demographic, not necessarily the general populace. Primary turn outs are even less, so its candidates that most likely appeal to the hardcore voter that are going to prosper, not outsiders Sanders (or others in the past who have tried to run on a more independent platform than the party norm). Of all the candidates for both parties who announce they are running in 2016, there will be 2-3 who have an actual chance with maybe one Cinderella story capturing the media attention keeping them around longer than they might otherwise be viable, but in the end it will be obvious who the viable candidates are almost from the onset, and currently Hilary is the only viable Dem candidate who has stepped forward (not that I am a fan) and I think only Jeb is viable among the GOP candidates so far (not that I like him much either). Unfortunately grass roots get mowed down by the money machine in the current political climate in the States more often than not, and the candidates who succeed are the micromanaged well groomed ones who manage to stay scandal free for the most part during the run to the White House. -M I don't think Jeb is viable at all. We had a Bush president after Reagan and then another Bush president for most of the 00's. I think the nation is largely bushed about the Bushes at this moment. I don't think Hillary is a particularly strong candidate, especially after the Clinton Foundation fiasco that just occurred. However, the mood of the country is still pro-Democratic enough that Hillary could still win if she faces a weak Republican candidate, of which there are plenty. I think someone like Scott Walker or Marco Rubio, who are younger, fresher faces with proven records (particularly Walker who has beaten the odds about a bazillion times in Wisconsin at this point), would have the best chance of beating Hillary. Not to say Sanders or anyone else the Democratic Party offers up doesn't have a chance, but a good portion of the Democrats want to coronate Hillary, and I think unless something happens that is Nixon-esque toxic, she will get the nomination. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 0:38:37 GMT -5
The question of viability both parties will be asking is how will the candidate sell in the swing states? Most states are entrenched in which way they will go in an election, and the tipping point is swing states like my own Ohio-can Walker be viable in a state like Ohio that has a large percentage of its work force working at Honda plants and highly pro-Union? Can Sanders sell in a state like Ohio with a lot of conservative farmers who don't trust east coast intellectuals? Can they be branded to sell in those states and which candidates can get the money necessary to fund the necessary campaigns in those swing states? The money will pour into those who can be viably branded, those who cannot will not get enough money to mount a serious campaign for the long haul. Identify the swing states and what will sell to them, then find which candidates have a possibility of carrying those states without losing the entrenched base, and there you will find your "viable candidates" among the hopefuls.
It's about which states they can carry, not how much they can win by.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 1:06:59 GMT -5
I don't think Bernie Sanders has a chance, unfortunately. I don't even think he'll really affect the platform. But I do hope that he stays in long enough for his message and ideas to get out. I agree with most everything he says, and I think he's a breath of fresh air - he's a real "maverick" who, unlike those who tried to claim that title in the past, is actually unbeholden to any party. Watching McCain shrivel up and wither away into a shell of himself after he got the GOP nomination in 2008 and started kowtowing to party politics was disheartening. I don't think that's going to happen with Sanders. He seems like he has the courage of his convictions, and he'll stick with it even if that makes him unelectable, which it likely will. For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of Hillary either, though I will vote for her over any of the clowns the GOP has trotted out so far. It's incredible to me the people they put forward as "leaders" - it's been an endless stream of empty suits and total sock puppets pandering to the lowest common denominator for the last 20 years. What I wouldn't give to have a real candidate like Bob Dole again. That was the last time I considered voting Republican, and the way things are going, I doubt I'll ever have to bother considering it again. For an independent, I don't think anyone follows the Democratic Party platform as religiously as Bernie Sanders. I don't think he would have to change his politics to make the Party happy. He'd have to change it to get corporate backing though. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 1:09:12 GMT -5
Just because she's a female democrat from Massachusetts doesn't make her a good choice. Her work in the senate does though. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 1:09:57 GMT -5
There are a lot of people from Massachusetts on this forum! On another note, I personally feel Christie has no chance at getting the nomination. If he were running for re-election as governor right now, and there was a viable candidate opposing him, I don't think he'd get re-elected, and in a presidential race I don't think he would carry his own state. And I believe the last time a candidate lost their home state yet won the presidency was Woodrow Wilson in 1916. The only other possible more recent example would be 1968, with Nixon, because I'm not sure if he was running from California or New York. He won California, lost New York. Anyway, point being I doubt Christie would carry his own state moving forward. And that, historically, has not been a good indicator in a presidential election. Ask Al Gore. He might be in prison by the time our new president takes office |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 1:13:21 GMT -5
If Christie had run directly in the aftermath of Sandy, he would have gotten a lot of bi-partisan support in a general election, but the bridge corruption scandals and other boneheaded/questionable things he has done since then has pissed away any goodwill he garnered from his actions during the wake of the hurricane and made him almost toxic on a national level, not just in his home state. Unfortunately nominations will not come down to the personal attributes or qualities of the candidates but how well they can be branded on a national level to appeal the the small fraction of the American population that turns out and participates int he elections. Less than half of all eligible Americans are registered to vote and a good turnout in a presidential election is if 1/3 to 40% of registered voters actually turn out to vote, so you are looking at a "majority" that actually consists of of 18-20% of Americans eligible to vote to carry an election, which means the party machines are going to put forward and support candidates that appeal to the voting demographic, not necessarily the general populace. Primary turn outs are even less, so its candidates that most likely appeal to the hardcore voter that are going to prosper, not outsiders Sanders (or others in the past who have tried to run on a more independent platform than the party norm). Of all the candidates for both parties who announce they are running in 2016, there will be 2-3 who have an actual chance with maybe one Cinderella story capturing the media attention keeping them around longer than they might otherwise be viable, but in the end it will be obvious who the viable candidates are almost from the onset, and currently Hilary is the only viable Dem candidate who has stepped forward (not that I am a fan) and I think only Jeb is viable among the GOP candidates so far (not that I like him much either). Unfortunately grass roots get mowed down by the money machine in the current political climate in the States more often than not, and the candidates who succeed are the micromanaged well groomed ones who manage to stay scandal free for the most part during the run to the White House. -M I don't think Jeb is viable at all. We had a Bush president after Reagan and then another Bush president for most of the 00's. I think the nation is largely bushed about the Bushes at this moment. I don't think Hillary is a particularly strong candidate, especially after the Clinton Foundation fiasco that just occurred. However, the mood of the country is still pro-Democratic enough that Hillary could still win if she faces a weak Republican candidate, of which there are plenty. I think someone like Scott Walker or Marco Rubio, who are younger, fresher faces with proven records (particularly Walker who has beaten the odds about a bazillion times in Wisconsin at this point), would have the best chance of beating Hillary. Not to say Sanders or anyone else the Democratic Party offers up doesn't have a chance, but a good portion of the Democrats want to coronate Hillary, and I think unless something happens that is Nixon-esque toxic, she will get the nomination. I think the only way Republicans are going to win is if the Democrats nominate somebody immediately before a HUGE scandal breaks. Which is why I worry about a Hillary nomination. Because I'm betting there's a scandal the GOP is keeping under wraps until they're sure she gets the nomination, and until then they'll just bitch about Benghazi like a bunch of idiots that don't have completely damning info in their pockets. If they ruined her now it would leave the Democratic Party too much time to nominate a winning candidate. I have a feeling someone on the right has realized this, possibly years ago, since it's been obvious she was a frontrunner since 2007 |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on May 4, 2015 2:08:19 GMT -5
Thanks Shax for reminding me about the 2000 scandal.
I've probably vote for Hillary if it came down to it, but not enthusiastically. Even though he's going to lose, I'm backing Bernie.
The Republican nomination is going to come down to Bush v Paul IMO. I could conceivably possibly maybe vote for Bush, but not Paul. There isn't another Republican I can think of at the moment I'd vote for.
As has been previously mentioned, I was ready to vote for McCain the Maverick until he thought he had a lock on the left and starting kowtowing to the right, which lost the goodwill he had built with the left.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 4, 2015 8:02:38 GMT -5
I liked McCain too... in 2000. He's since become a party stalward, not to mention he's clearly too old.
You guys are probably right about Christie, and I suppose the fact he burned so much good will should say something... the field is just so weak.
My wife really likes Saunders, but I just don't think he's a viable national candidate... the Republicans call Obama a socialist, what are they going to do when an actual socialist runs? I think the propaganga will just be ridiculous.
|
|
