2016 Presidential Horse Race

[NCDomer]

The problem for most Wiz is if it doesn't fit neatly into the media's carefully pre-packaged political boxes, they still label it with their "team's" lingo and try to cram it in the box anyways.

People on today's left can't wrap their heads around someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. They throw you in the same box with Pat Robertson because you are the same in their eyes.

.

That's not what I was doing by any means. I recognize the difference. However, I recognize that they both fall on the conservative side of the spectrum. Just because you're main schtick is on the fiscal side or social/moral side doesn't mean you aren't conservative in the larger scheme of things. The data indicates Rand is more conservative than Santorum too. I highly doubt everyone on the left thinks Huckabee, Cruz (he's really both socially and fiscally conservative), Santorum, et al are the same as the Pauls, Mitch Daniels, and Walter Jones. Funny thing is my comment stemmed from J. Bush being too moderate; something I thought made his an attractive populist candidate (if he didn't have Bush as a last name). However, as the article I referenced above, indicates this probably hurts him in winning the GOP nomination, yet the right will blame his moderatism even if he did win for why he lost... which isn't the real reason, it's that those bitching about him being didn't get off their ass to vote.

It's not just a critique of the right either. Liberals have their own liberal schticks too on the fiscal side and social/moral side. Warren is the most prominent fiscal liberal. Bernie Sanders is the most prominent social/moral liberal. Generally, the fiscal liberals are just calls liberals while the social/moral liberals are called progressives. It doesn't mean they aren't both generally considered liberals.

 

[Buster Bluth]

reject the notion that we should have to pick between a socialism and fascism.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Romney lost because he is a 1% douche who alienated half the country when he made a dramatic shift right to appeal to tea baggers and further alienated half the country by saying they were addicted to the gpvermment teet. Fuck Romney and the dancing horse he rode in on.

Romney lost because he isn't a true conservative, could not clearly articulate conservative principles, and was way too soft on the current admin during the campaign. With all that, it was still the closest election in history. We haven't had a true conservative candidate since 1984, and I'm hoping someone like Rand, Cruz, or Carson changes that.

 

[NOLAIrish]

This thread is really informative. I consider myself an Independent. Though I lean to the left. As of late. I noticed that some on the right have been talking more about income inequality. How bad it is now. My question is. Can some of those that lean right give me some examples where Republicans proposed laws that benefited the middle class?

There's a really interesting line of research on people who identify as independents with a lean. Researchers have repeatedly found that when you ask individuals what their views are on actual issues, independents actually fall more in line with the party on their end of the spectrum than the average member of that party. Their views line up best with people who identify as "strong" members of the party.

Romney lost because he isn't a true conservative, could not clearly articulate conservative principles, and was way too soft on the current admin during the campaign. With all that, it was still the closest election in history. We haven't had a true conservative candidate since 1984, and I'm hoping someone like Rand, Cruz, or Carson changes that.

I don't know of any metric by which 2012 was the closest election in history. The gap was 5 million voters and nearly 4%. He won the electoral vote by 126. Bush-Kerry was 2 million/2.4%/35. Bush-Gore was -450,000/-0.5%/5, Carter-Ford was 1.7 million/2.1%/57. The list goes on and on. Kennedy-Nixon was decided by 100,000 votes. Nixon-Humphrey was 500,000. We've had 3 elections outside of Bush-Gore in which the winner of the popular vote lost the election. As re-elections go, Obama-Kerry was about average.

 

[DonnieNarco]

Nothing was closer than 1876 and 1824.

 

[DonnieNarco]

The 2012 election was the 21st closest in history, so it's about right in the middle.

List of United States presidential elections by Electoral College margin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[GoIrish41]

Romney lost because he isn't a true conservative, could not clearly articulate conservative principles, and was way too soft on the current admin during the campaign. With all that, it was still the closest election in history. We haven't had a true conservative candidate since 1984, and I'm hoping someone like Rand, Cruz, or Carson changes that.

Almost everything in this post is a fabrication. His sprint to the right cost him dearly. Articulating conservative principles cost him because that is not what people want. When the GOP stops living in the past they will be competitive in national elections again. Last election was not the closest in hostory. Electoral college shows a vote that really was not that close. Hell Bush lost the popular vote and won by the thinnest of margins against Gore. You are making stuff up now.

 

[wizards8507]

On what planet did Mitt Romney ever sprint to the right?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

There's a really interesting line of research on people who identify as independents with a lean. Researchers have repeatedly found that when you ask individuals what their views are on actual issues, independents actually fall more in line with the party on their end of the spectrum than the average member of that party. Their views line up best with people who identify as "strong" members of the party.



I don't know of any metric by which 2012 was the closest election in history. The gap was 5 million voters and nearly 4%. He won the electoral vote by 126. Bush-Kerry was 2 million/2.4%/35. Bush-Gore was -450,000/-0.5%/5, Carter-Ford was 1.7 million/2.1%/57. The list goes on and on. Kennedy-Nixon was decided by 100,000 votes. Nixon-Humphrey was 500,000. We've had 3 elections outside of Bush-Gore in which the winner of the popular vote lost the election. As re-elections go, Obama-Kerry was about average.

I stand corrected. I knew the electoral wasn't close but I thought the total vote count was.

 

[pkt77242]

On what planet did Mitt Romney ever sprint to the right?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

On Earth, what planet are you on?

Here is how I would describe it, Romeny ran way farther to the right then he did as the Governor of Massachusetts and from even how he ran in 2008. Now I would agree that he didn't run as they wanted as conservative (or just isn't as conservative) as some might have preferred or wanted, but there is now doubt that he sprinted to the right in comparison to how he has governed and or campaigned previously.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Almost everything in this post is a fabrication. His sprint to the right cost him dearly. Articulating conservative principles cost him because that is not what people want. When the GOP stops living in the past they will be competitive in national elections again. Last election was not the closest in hostory. Electoral college shows a vote that really was not that close. Hell Bush lost the popular vote and won by the thinnest of margins against Gore. You are making stuff up now.

lol you crack me up. I admitted my mistake on the closest election. Electorally, it wasn't close. The total vote count, in fact, was.

Romney? Sprint to the right?! hahahahaha...he was a northeastern "moderate" who was the architect of Romney care!! You really are in a warped world. If the country wanted the far left then 2010 and 2014 wouldn't have happened. No fabrication here...the 2010 swing in Congress was the biggest since the 1950s. It's the Republicans' own damn fault for trotting out shitty candidates, but 2016 damn well better change that.

 

[GoIrish41]

On what planet did Mitt Romney ever sprint to the right?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

On planet 47%

 

[GoIrish41]

lol you crack me up. I admitted my mistake on the closest election. Electorally, it wasn't close. The total vote count, in fact, was.

Romney? Sprint to the right?! hahahahaha...he was a northeastern "moderate" who was the architect of Romney care!! You really are in a warped world. If the country wanted the far left then 2010 and 2014 wouldn't have happened. No fabrication here...the 2010 swing in Congress was the biggest since the 1950s. It's the Republicans' own damn fault for trotting out shitty candidates, but 2016 damn well better change that.

He lost by millions of votes. If USC beats ND by 48 points, are you going to try to convice us it was close? Didn't think so.

He WAS a notheastern moderate who abandoned Romneycare as a socialist reach of big government. That in and of itself is a pretty good indication that he pushed way right (and that he was a shameless flip flopper who had no integrity whatsoever). Not enough? How about the fact that he wrote off 47% of the population that he could not convince to vote for him and his policies (because he was too far right). He lost partially because he forgot who he was and tried to be what the extreme right of his party wanted him to be instead. IMO, he had absolutely no shot at winning in the first place, but that is another discussion altogether.

And no, to your theory about 2014 elections. Gerrymandered districts in red states resulted in the takeover of the Senate and growth of GOP seats in the House. (That and because gutless Democrats allowed the GOP to lead the discussion and they refused to get behind the substantial accomplishments they were a part of for the previous six years).

I still don't see a non-shitty candidate in the Republican field in 2016. Get your talking points ready for how President Hillary is ruining the country, because there will be a Democrate in the White House for the next decade, at least.

 

[DonnieNarco]

He went far right on what American voters don't want to be far right. Mitt was a bland rich guy who came across as snooty. He was never going to appeal to any base, and I don't get how he won the primary.

 

[DonnieNarco]

The thing about 2010 and 2014 is that young people don't vote as much, or in 2014's case not at all, in non-presidential years.

 

[wizards8507]

The thing about 2010 and 2014 is that young people don't vote as much, or in 2014's case not at all, in non-presidential years.

Even in presidential years. Obama was an anomaly because he was the first "cool" candidate. Neither Hillary, Biden, nor Warren would inspire youth turnout like Obama did.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

 

[DonnieNarco]

Even in presidential years. Obama was an anomaly because he was the first "cool" candidate. Neither Hillary, Biden, nor Warren would inspire youth turnout like Obama did.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

It may not be to the extent of Obama since he was young, handsome, and an incredible speaker, but more young people will go out than in 2010 and 2014. Clinton's name will help a lot as well (sadly, no use in pretending anyone else can win the primaries than her).

 

[wizards8507]

It may not be to the extent of Obama since he was young, handsome, and an incredible speaker, but more young people will go out than in 2010 and 2014. Clinton's name will help a lot as well (sadly, no use in pretending anyone else can win the primaries than her).

You think Clinton's name will HELP among young people? Young people hate political aristocracy. The only thing she has going for her in terms of "excitement" is her gender.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

 

[DonnieNarco]

You think Clinton's name will HELP among young people? Young people hate political aristocracy. The only thing she has going for her in terms of "excitement" is her gender.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

People like Bill. People who are upset with political aristocracy aren't voting in the first place and a good chance they usually vote outside of the 2 big parties (like I will if Hillary gets the nomination). Bill is popular, and Hillary is a familiar name. People may act like they hate political aristocracy, but there's a reason it will be Bush-Clinton again this year.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

He lost by millions of votes. If USC beats ND by 48 points, are you going to try to convice us it was close? Didn't think so.

He WAS a notheastern moderate who abandoned Romneycare as a socialist reach of big government. That in and of itself is a pretty good indication that he pushed way right (and that he was a shameless flip flopper who had no integrity whatsoever). Not enough? How about the fact that he wrote off 47% of the population that he could not convince to vote for him and his policies (because he was too far right). He lost partially because he forgot who he was and tried to be what the extreme right of his party wanted him to be instead. IMO, he had absolutely no shot at winning in the first place, but that is another discussion altogether.

And no, to your theory about 2014 elections. Gerrymandered districts in red states resulted in the takeover of the Senate and growth of GOP seats in the House. (That and because gutless Democrats allowed the GOP to lead the discussion and they refused to get behind the substantial accomplishments they were a part of for the previous six years).

I still don't see a non-shitty candidate in the Republican field in 2016. Get your talking points ready for how President Hillary is ruining the country, because there will be a Democrate in the White House for the next decade, at least.

Are you comparing a presidential election to a football game? lol

2010 and 2014 didn't happen because of gerrymandering. It happened because uninspired and disappointed democrats stayed home, and conservatives and libertarians took out the trash.

Not here to defend Romney. It'd be like you crying about Mondale getting defeated. But the fantasy world you live in doesn't exist.

As far as Hillary goes...will be interesting. In hindsight I'd rather have her over obama.

Oh and don't forget...if you're Anti-Rubio or Anti-Cruz you're the Offical IE racist of the 2016 election.

 

[Black Irish]

He lost by millions of votes. If USC beats ND by 48 points, are you going to try to convice us it was close? Didn't think so.

He WAS a notheastern moderate who abandoned Romneycare as a socialist reach of big government. That in and of itself is a pretty good indication that he pushed way right (and that he was a shameless flip flopper who had no integrity whatsoever). Not enough? How about the fact that he wrote off 47% of the population that he could not convince to vote for him and his policies (because he was too far right). He lost partially because he forgot who he was and tried to be what the extreme right of his party wanted him to be instead. IMO, he had absolutely no shot at winning in the first place, but that is another discussion altogether.

And no, to your theory about 2014 elections. Gerrymandered districts in red states resulted in the takeover of the Senate and growth of GOP seats in the House. (That and because gutless Democrats allowed the GOP to lead the discussion and they refused to get behind the substantial accomplishments they were a part of for the previous six years).

I still don't see a non-shitty candidate in the Republican field in 2016. Get your talking points ready for how President Hillary is ruining the country, because there will be a Democrate in the White House for the next decade, at least.

You can't gerrymander a Senate seat. As to the rest of the bolded, come on. The only reason the GOP made gains is because 1.) Basically, cheating (i.e. gerrymandering) and 2.) Congressional Democrats did so much good for the country in the previous 6 years but were too gutless or modest to tell everyone about it? Could the GOP takeover have anything to do with, maybe voters not liking the Democrats "substantial accomplishments?" I get that you don't care for conservatives and the GOP, but it's silly to chalk up their electoral gains solely to underhanded tactics and bad faith.

 

[wizards8507]

Fed fires back at Rand Paul | TheHill

Anything that pisses off the Fed, sign me up!

 

[GoIrish41]

How big a hole did Rand Paul dig for himself with his views on vaccinations this week? Not helping to convince anyone that he and his party have embraced science.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

How big a hole did Rand Paul dig for himself with his views on vaccinations this week? Not helping to convince anyone that he and his party have embraced science.

lol. none. people won't be voting based on his position on vaccinations.

 

[wizards8507]

How big a hole did Rand Paul dig for himself with his views on vaccinations this week? Not helping to convince anyone that he and his party have embraced science.

About exactly the same size hole as Obama dug when he made even more anti-vaccine comments in 2008.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/obama-vaccines-views-suspicious-114837.html

To be clear, Rand Paul says you SHOULD vaccinate your kids but that you should not be forced to do so.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

 

[RDU Irish]

Rand made some Jenny McCarthyesque statements about people he knew whose kids showed serious side effects to vaccines. Besides that loonie toon talk, he is dead on with his same message of freedom for parents to choose over government what is best for their kids.

What is outstanding is all the wack nut Cali areas that have 40% vaccination rates in schools. All it takes is a "belief" waiver and you don't have to do it. Now they have measles reintroduced to the US of A.

How about insurance carriers doubling rates if you DON'T vaccinate? You are increasing the risk of major medical expenses as well as civil liability if you spread that crap around. Just like invitro, get a $500k bond if you do it b/c you should be liable when bad things happen.

 

[RDU Irish]

Some idiot "expert" doctor responding to Rand Paul said the vaccines are 100% effective. That is patently false and if true would negate the concern since anyone with the vaccine would not be at risk. Depending on the vaccine, maybe 90% is a reasonable estimate of efficacy.

I would love to see people promote 100% vaccinated day cares and private schools in response to this B.S. No reason private enterprises should be forced to accept these BS waivers.

 

[DonnieNarco]

The freedom argument for vaccine goes right out the window when it affects the health of others. Infants, those who can't get the vaccine for health reasons, and people for whom the vaccines did not work. All of those people can get ill because of one person's stupid misinformed decision.

Your freedom to throw a punch ends when it is aimed at a face. I can't throw my trash into the middle of the street because it would be a public danger. Not being vaccinated is a public danger. People who do not vaccinate their kids should have their insurance premiums go through the roof.

 

[DonnieNarco]

How big a hole did Rand Paul dig for himself with his views on vaccinations this week? Not helping to convince anyone that he and his party have embraced science.

Well he's running the primary in his party so science isn't the biggest concern. How many people in the bases he will be pandering to believe in evolution? Or climate change? It will not hurt him.

 

[RDU Irish]

People already have the choice not to vaccinate, as evidenced by 40% vaccination rates in the limo liberal hotbed communities of California. It is wing nuts on both sides that buy into the anti-vaccine garbage.

All I can do is best protect myself from idiots, vaccines give me a 90% chance of not being affected by these morons. A few civil lawsuits along with upped health insurance and personal liability insurance premiums for these crack pots and you will see 3/4ths of them throw their "beliefs" out the window and get in line.

We already refuse to take kids away from truly negligent parents, do you really think the feds are going to suddenly grow a pair of balls and enforce a vaccine mandate?