2016 Presidential Horse Race

2016 Presidential Horse Race


  • Total voters
    183

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en data-scribe-reduced-action-queue="><p>Embarrassing. Reporters chase after Hillary's Scooby van. <a href="https://t.co/4miinTe9WU">https://t.co/4miinTe9WU</a></p>— Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) <a href="https://twitter.com/FreeBeacon/status/588043526627295232">April 14, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
What do you have think of him BB?I have to look this guy up I know nothing about him.

I know a little about him but googled looking for more info. I intended to search "Is John Kasich a viable candidate for president", BUT after I entered the first three words, "Is John Kasich", up popped search results starting with, "Is John Kasich a Democrat".

I suspect Kasich appeals to independents and moderates from both parties. Conservatives believe the former Gingrich protege betrayed conservative viewpoints with ACA and other issues. To Liberals who don't like moderate Dems, he's pure enemy. Interesting point that indies and party moderates share many of his views as those are the people that elect The President.

Regan had a landslide with moderates. Clinton would be an attorney in Arkansas without winning the middle. Teddy Kennedy, Jesse Jackson and the other Dem vocal liberals disappeared from the Clinton's first primary campaign when he became the front runner concurrently with Buchanan pulling Bush 1 to the right in the GOP primaries. Clinton wasn't a moderate but he jumped into the void left by Buchanan and Bush fighting for the hearts and minds of the small percentage of the Total Presidential Vote that participate in a state primary. It was brillant strategy by the Dem Party after decades of catering to their vocal Minority in the primaries by nominating candidates that were unelectable by the majority of Presidential Voters. After that Bush1 disaster with the sitting president with the highest Popularity Rating 6 months before the election pissing it away battling Buchanan.

Conservatives now repeat the Libs shortsightedness demanding a standard bearer far from the center. Candidates that have been shown not to be electable in the general election ... Regardless of party.

I have no idea if Kasich is presidential timber.

As an independent, I like someone who believes in a balanced budget and will work with the other side to move ahead. But based on the past two decades of primaries I doubt a Republican who got elected in a Democratic state would get strong Republican support in a general election. Had the conservatives stop bashing the Republican nominee in the last election they would have had a president closer to their viewpoints than the Democrat that won.
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,518
Reaction score
3,263
I know a little about him but googled looking for more info. I intended to search "Is John Kasich a viable candidate for president", BUT after I entered the first three words, "Is John Kasich", up popped search results starting with, "Is John Kasich a Democrat".

I suspect Kasich appeals to independents and moderates from both parties. Conservatives believe the former Gingrich protege betrayed conservative viewpoints with ACA and other issues. To Liberals who don't like moderate Dems, he's pure enemy. Interesting point that indies and party moderates share many of his views as those are the people that elect The President.

Regan had a landslide with moderates. Clinton would be an attorney in Arkansas without winning the middle. Teddy Kennedy, Jesse Jackson and the other Dem vocal liberals disappeared from the Clinton's first primary campaign when he became the front runner concurrently with Buchanan pulling Bush 1 to the right in the GOP primaries. Clinton wasn't a moderate but he jumped into the void left by Buchanan and Bush fighting for the hearts and minds of the small percentage of the Total Presidential Vote that participate in a state primary. It was brillant strategy by the Dem Party after decades of catering to their vocal Minority in the primaries by nominating candidates that were unelectable by the majority of Presidential Voters. After that Bush1 disaster with the sitting president with the highest Popularity Rating 6 months before the election pissing it away battling Buchanan.

Conservatives now repeat the Libs shortsightedness demanding a standard bearer far from the center. Candidates that have been shown not to be electable in the general election ... Regardless of party.

Obama is about as far left as it gets (at least on a national level) and he hammered two moderate GOP candidates on his way to the White House.

As an independent, I like someone who believes in a balanced budget and will work with the other side to move ahead. But based on the past two decades of primaries I doubt a Republican who got elected in a Democratic state would get strong Republican support in a general election. Had the conservatives stop bashing the Republican nominee in the last election they would have had a president closer to their viewpoints than the Democrat that won.

There were some conservatives that bashed him but he had quite a bit of conservative support, especially after the first debate. I doubt conservatives bashing him played any role in his defeat. That election was lost as soon as that video of him discussing non-taxpayers was released.
 

dshans

They call me The Dribbler
Messages
9,624
Reaction score
1,181
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en data-scribe-reduced-action-queue="><p>Embarrassing. Reporters chase after Hillary's Scooby van. <a href="https://t.co/4miinTe9WU">https://t.co/4miinTe9WU</a></p>— Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) <a href="https://twitter.com/FreeBeacon/status/588043526627295232">April 14, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

At first glance I read "Free BACON," not Free BEACON." I figured that they were in Iowa soooo ... I thought it was an appropriate response if the food tent was loaded with free thick cut maple smoked bacon.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
There were some conservatives that bashed him but he had quite a bit of conservative support, especially after the first debate. I doubt conservatives bashing him played any role in his defeat. That election was lost as soon as that video of him discussing non-taxpayers was released.

Specific conservative bashing didn't do him in, and his 47% comment was rough, but the fact remains that winning the GOP nomination requires playing the part of Reagan Reincarnate for six months and it has a demonstrably negative effect on their general election campaigns. If Romney could have run as Massachusetts Romney, he'd be President right now.
 

GoldenDome

New member
Messages
808
Reaction score
61
I doubt Rubio is the guy that can bring together the fractured GOP. He has already been criticized heavily for his past immigration stances. I also don't think many can relate to Tea Party neocons.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
I doubt Rubio is the guy that can bring together the fractured GOP. He has already been criticized heavily for his past immigration stances. I also don't think many can relate to Tea Party neocons.

Why do you hate hispanics so much and are so racist? It is obvious by the way you are referring to him simply by his last name emphasizing his ethnicity and thus labeling him pejoratively. Also, you are being horribly sexist by empasizing the fact that he is a guy which is pure dog whistle sexism right there because you know that code word turns off female and LGBTQ voters.

It is simply amazing the amount intolerance of some of you posters on here!
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en data-scribe-reduced-action-queue="><p>Scooby van, return to base! <a href="http://t.co/MagW6SoZXF">http://t.co/MagW6SoZXF</a></p>— David Freddoso (@freddoso) <a href="https://twitter.com/freddoso/status/588152106890190848">April 15, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

Black Irish

Wise Guy
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
602
I doubt Rubio is the guy that can bring together the fractured GOP. He has already been criticized heavily for his past immigration stances. I also don't think many can relate to Tea Party neocons.

True, but those neo-cons and Tea Party people aren't voting for Hillary anyway. Broadly speaking, the match up looks good for the GOP in a Rubio versus Clinton race. Young Hispanic candidate with good public speaking skills versus a grouchy old political insider.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
True, but those neo-cons and Tea Party people aren't voting for Hillary anyway. Broadly speaking, the match up looks good for the GOP in a Rubio versus Clinton race. Young Hispanic candidate with good public speaking skills versus a grouchy old political insider.

To be fair, NOBODY was going to vote for a 1st term black senator from IL, a hick country Governor from out of nowhere (works for Clinton or Carter), Bush's kid, or old actor from the Bonzo movies.
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
To be fair, NOBODY was going to vote for a 1st term black senator from IL, a hick country Governor from out of nowhere (works for Clinton or Carter), Bush's kid, or old actor from the Bonzo movies.

(1st Term Black Senator from IL) - A vote against an unpopular war and against an administration that lied to get us into it.

(A Hick Governor from Out of Nowhere) - In Carter case, a vote against the corruption of the Nixon administration and the man who pardoned Nixon. In Clinton's case, a vote for the single best politician/campaigner of recent times. No one could convey sincerity better than Clinton when he looked into the eyes of a potential voter. He may not have been sincere, but he connected with the ordinary man.

(Bush's Kid) - A backlash against Clinton's personal life and the bitter partisanship of his administration. Gore was too closely connected with Clinton and actually won the popular vote despite of the connection. Bush also blundered when he said "No New Taxes" and then proceeded to raise taxes.

(An old actor from the Bonzo Movies) - Reagan's win in 1980 was a direct result of the Iranian occupation of the American Embassy and the subsequent holding of hostages. Carter's inability to successfully resolve the hostage situation cost him re-election.

So in reality, all of your examples are more of a vote against the previous administration than a vote for the newly elected administration. If the pattern holds true, the 2016 election is the Republicans to lose.

Select a moderate candidate like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio and they have a chance. Go crazy with a Ted Cruz or a Rand Paul and you will see Goldwater II. I'm just not sure the GOP southern block is ready to vote for a Latino candidate. Lack of enthusiasm and a small turnout in states like Virginia and North Carolina could swing those states Democratic.

And if Jim Webb is the candidate instead of Hillary Clinton, the Republicans will have a very difficult time winning the necessary electoral votes. A Clinton-Webb ticket would be ideal for the Democrats.
 

DomeX2 eNVy

New member
Messages
1,354
Reaction score
66
On the Hugh Hewitt show, Chris Christie comes out strong against marijuana; I guess he just lost NDOM's vote.


Hewitt: Right now, we’ve got the states of Colorado and Washington flaunting [sic] federal law by allowing people to sell dope legally. If you’re the president of the United States, are you going to enforce the federal drug laws in those states?

Christie: Absolutely. I will crack down and not permit it.

Hewitt: All right, next…

Christie: Marijuana is a gateway drug. We have an enormous addiction problem in this country. And we need to send very clear leadership from the White House on down through the federal law enforcement. Marijuana is an illegal drug under federal law. And the states should not be permitted to sell it and profit from it.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
(1st Term Black Senator from IL) - A vote against an unpopular war and against an administration that lied to get us into it.

(A Hick Governor from Out of Nowhere) - In Carter case, a vote against the corruption of the Nixon administration and the man who pardoned Nixon. In Clinton's case, a vote for the single best politician/campaigner of recent times. No one could convey sincerity better than Clinton when he looked into the eyes of a potential voter. He may not have been sincere, but he connected with the ordinary man.

(Bush's Kid) - A backlash against Clinton's personal life and the bitter partisanship of his administration. Gore was too closely connected with Clinton and actually won the popular vote despite of the connection. Bush also blundered when he said "No New Taxes" and then proceeded to raise taxes.

(An old actor from the Bonzo Movies) - Reagan's win in 1980 was a direct result of the Iranian occupation of the American Embassy and the subsequent holding of hostages. Carter's inability to successfully resolve the hostage situation cost him re-election.

So in reality, all of your examples are more of a vote against the previous administration than a vote for the newly elected administration. If the pattern holds true, the 2016 election is the Republicans to lose.

Select a moderate candidate like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio and they have a chance. Go crazy with a Ted Cruz or a Rand Paul and you will see Goldwater II. I'm just not sure the GOP southern block is ready to vote for a Latino candidate. Lack of enthusiasm and a small turnout in states like Virginia and North Carolina could swing those states Democratic.

And if Jim Webb is the candidate instead of Hillary Clinton, the Republicans will have a very difficult time winning the necessary electoral votes. A Clinton-Webb ticket would be ideal for the Democrats.

I agree that those were generally votes against current power ...in the general election. However, over a year and a half out from their elections, at the point where people were throwing their hats into the ring, those examples weren't power players heading into their own primaries. Actually of all of them Bush's kid was probably the one with the highest odds of getting his own party's nomination.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BjWXRyZqRps" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

DomeX2 eNVy

New member
Messages
1,354
Reaction score
66
American's prominent socialist, Bernie Sanders, announced that he will be running as a Democrat. This will be interesting to see if he can push Hillary to the left, or will she try to stake the middle position?


On a side note, I'm sort of worried about Connor's infatuation with Hillary. lol.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
American's prominent socialist, Bernie Sanders, announced that he will be running as a Democrat. This will be interesting to see if he can push Hillary to the left, or will she try to stake the middle position?


On a side note, I'm sort of worried about Connor's infatuation with Hillary. lol.

My guess is H-> will claim to stake out the middle ground compared to Bernie.

PS In my defense, she is kinda dominating the presidential campaign news cycle...sorry
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
All I'm saying is that America needs the mother of all Clinton scandals to wreck her campaign and get ol' Bernie boy the nomination. #BenghaziBlowjobs
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
I'm not a big fan of Hillary Clinton, but there is no way I want a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President. Such a combination would set us back several decades with some of the policies they support. We need to have a check on the power of any one party. Single party rule left unchecked would not be good for the country, because it would put too much power in the hands of the extremists in that party. I might be forced to hold my nose and vote for Hillary to keep the extremists in the Republican party from pushing through their agenda unchecked.

By the way, I'm not in favor of the Democrats controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency simultaneously either. The left-wing extremists would be just as much a threat as those on the right. If the Democrats had control of the House and Senate, I would likely vote for the Republican presidential candidate to keep the extremists on the left from running wild.

We could use a system with some of the checks and balances inherent in the British Parliamentary System. Multiple parties (none of which could win a majority) forming a coalition would ensure compromise rather than extremism. And right now our country could use a little compromise. How's this for a presidential race with the winners having to form a coalition with some of the losers to ensure a majority:

Tea Party Candidate = Ted Cruz
Traditional Republican Candidate = Jeb Bush
Libertarian Candidate = Rand Paul
Socialist Candidate = Bernie Sanders
Traditional Democratic Candidate = Hillary Clinton
Liberal Democratic Candidate = Elizabeth Warren

If these six candidates (or someone similar) were all on the ballot and voters knew that their vote would not be wasted by voting for one of the non-traditional candidates, none of the above would win a majority of the vote or enough electoral votes to be elected president. If our system forced the above candidates to compromise to gain the necessary majority, we would have far less partisanship. If the coalition could not hold together, a new election would be held and a new coalition formed.

I could see a coalition of Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton working together to keep the extremists of both parties at bay. I could also envision an anti-war coalition of Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, and Elizabeth Warren.
 

Black Irish

Wise Guy
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
602
I'm not a big fan of Hillary Clinton, but there is no way I want a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President. Such a combination would set us back several decades with some of the policies they support. We need to have a check on the power of any one party. Single party rule left unchecked would not be good for the country, because it would put too much power in the hands of the extremists in that party. I might be forced to hold my nose and vote for Hillary to keep the extremists in the Republican party from pushing through their agenda unchecked.

By the way, I'm not in favor of the Democrats controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency simultaneously either. The left-wing extremists would be just as much a threat as those on the right. If the Democrats had control of the House and Senate, I would likely vote for the Republican presidential candidate to keep the extremists on the left from running wild.

We could use a system with some of the checks and balances inherent in the British Parliamentary System. Multiple parties (none of which could win a majority) forming a coalition would ensure compromise rather than extremism. And right now our country could use a little compromise. How's this for a presidential race with the winners having to form a coalition with some of the losers to ensure a majority:

Tea Party Candidate = Ted Cruz
Traditional Republican Candidate = Jeb Bush
Libertarian Candidate = Rand Paul
Socialist Candidate = Bernie Sanders
Traditional Democratic Candidate = Hillary Clinton
Liberal Democratic Candidate = Elizabeth Warren

If these six candidates (or someone similar) were all on the ballot and voters knew that their vote would not be wasted by voting for one of the non-traditional candidates, none of the above would win a majority of the vote or enough electoral votes to be elected president. If our system forced the above candidates to compromise to gain the necessary majority, we would have far less partisanship. If the coalition could not hold together, a new election would be held and a new coalition formed.

I could see a coalition of Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton working together to keep the extremists of both parties at bay. I could also envision an anti-war coalition of Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, and Elizabeth Warren.

The first thing I thought of in reading this scenario was how all of the prison gangs in "Oz" worked with each other to stay ahead. Since no one group is all-powerful, shifty alliances need to be forged in order to keep power in check and make sure that everyone has a seat at the table. I'm not saying that's what you are talking about, it's just what popped into my head.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
I'm not a big fan of Hillary Clinton, but there is no way I want a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President. Such a combination would set us back several decades with some of the policies they support. We need to have a check on the power of any one party. Single party rule left unchecked would not be good for the country, because it would put too much power in the hands of the extremists in that party. I might be forced to hold my nose and vote for Hillary to keep the extremists in the Republican party from pushing through their agenda unchecked.

By the way, I'm not in favor of the Democrats controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency simultaneously either. The left-wing extremists would be just as much a threat as those on the right. If the Democrats had control of the House and Senate, I would likely vote for the Republican presidential candidate to keep the extremists on the left from running wild.

We could use a system with some of the checks and balances inherent in the British Parliamentary System. Multiple parties (none of which could win a majority) forming a coalition would ensure compromise rather than extremism. And right now our country could use a little compromise. How's this for a presidential race with the winners having to form a coalition with some of the losers to ensure a majority:

Tea Party Candidate = Ted Cruz
Traditional Republican Candidate = Jeb Bush
Libertarian Candidate = Rand Paul
Socialist Candidate = Bernie Sanders
Traditional Democratic Candidate = Hillary Clinton
Liberal Democratic Candidate = Elizabeth Warren

If these six candidates (or someone similar) were all on the ballot and voters knew that their vote would not be wasted by voting for one of the non-traditional candidates, none of the above would win a majority of the vote or enough electoral votes to be elected president. If our system forced the above candidates to compromise to gain the necessary majority, we would have far less partisanship. If the coalition could not hold together, a new election would be held and a new coalition formed.

I could see a coalition of Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton working together to keep the extremists of both parties at bay. I could also envision an anti-war coalition of Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, and Elizabeth Warren.

Thats nice to say NOW...you vote for President Obama in '08?

I'm unmoved by the "balance of power" plea from liberals at this point in the context you used it, and the actual abuse of power in the executive branch at present.
 

DSully1995

New member
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
74
I'm not a big fan of Hillary Clinton, but there is no way I want a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President. Such a combination would set us back several decades with some of the policies they support. We need to have a check on the power of any one party. Single party rule left unchecked would not be good for the country, because it would put too much power in the hands of the extremists in that party. I might be forced to hold my nose and vote for Hillary to keep the extremists in the Republican party from pushing through their agenda unchecked.

By the way, I'm not in favor of the Democrats controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency simultaneously either. The left-wing extremists would be just as much a threat as those on the right. If the Democrats had control of the House and Senate, I would likely vote for the Republican presidential candidate to keep the extremists on the left from running wild.

We could use a system with some of the checks and balances inherent in the British Parliamentary System. Multiple parties (none of which could win a majority) forming a coalition would ensure compromise rather than extremism. And right now our country could use a little compromise. How's this for a presidential race with the winners having to form a coalition with some of the losers to ensure a majority:

Tea Party Candidate = Ted Cruz
Traditional Republican Candidate = Jeb Bush
Libertarian Candidate = Rand Paul
Socialist Candidate = Bernie Sanders
Traditional Democratic Candidate = Hillary Clinton
Liberal Democratic Candidate = Elizabeth Warren

If these six candidates (or someone similar) were all on the ballot and voters knew that their vote would not be wasted by voting for one of the non-traditional candidates, none of the above would win a majority of the vote or enough electoral votes to be elected president. If our system forced the above candidates to compromise to gain the necessary majority, we would have far less partisanship. If the coalition could not hold together, a new election would be held and a new coalition formed.

I could see a coalition of Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton working together to keep the extremists of both parties at bay. I could also envision an anti-war coalition of Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, and Elizabeth Warren.

Be careful what you wish for. There are benefits, and there would be costs, a splitting of the vote could allow a ~30 percent base to control government. Like right now in Canada our conservatives are not a full majority of the Vote, but won a majority of the Seats. Grass is always greener on the other side.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Tea Party Candidate = Ted Cruz
Traditional Republican Candidate = Jeb Bush
Libertarian Candidate = Rand Paul
Socialist Candidate = Bernie Sanders
Traditional Democratic Candidate = Hillary Clinton
Liberal Democratic Candidate = Elizabeth Warren
Interesting split but have a hunch that you're using "Tea Party" to mean "right wing" and I believe Ted Cruz is a bit more libertarian-leaning (or at the very least constitutionalist) than your model would indicate. For example, Cruz believes the gay marriage issue should be left to the states, as opposed to the hard religious right of Rick Santorum, who would ban it tomorrow nationwide if he had the chance. I also think there's minimal difference between socialist Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren other than the fact that Bernie admits what he is.
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
The first thing I thought of in reading this scenario was how all of the prison gangs in "Oz" worked with each other to stay ahead. Since no one group is all-powerful, shifty alliances need to be forged in order to keep power in check and make sure that everyone has a seat at the table. I'm not saying that's what you are talking about, it's just what popped into my head.

The key point is to force the wackos (left and right) to compromise on their extreme agendas or be left out in the cold by a centrist coalition. It would also make it more difficult to buy political influence, because the coalition could be broken forcing a new election. If one party tried to reward their big contributors with government money or policies, smaller parties that helped to form the coalition could withdraw their support forcing a new election and the offending party out of office. The way things are now, there is no motivation to keep campaign promises or to resist paying back key contributors. It is nearly impossible to unseat an incumbent with lots of money behind him or her.
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,979
True, but those neo-cons and Tea Party people aren't voting for Hillary anyway. Broadly speaking, the match up looks good for the GOP in a Rubio versus Clinton race. Young Hispanic candidate with good public speaking skills versus a grouchy old political insider.

I would temper my confidence in Rubio. He gets beat up in Latin media all the time and is despised by many. A large number see him as a carrer political (which he is) who changes his views to fit the whims of some of the nuttier factions of the GOP (ie kowtows/ sucks up to old white guys) and caved on immigration reform when the going got tough (which is a bad look in the eyes the rest of the Latino populace considering the preferential treatment Cubans receive in that area). He might help in Florida with the ultra conservative Cuban vote, but might otherwise be a liability with people of Puerto Rican, Mexican, Central and South American heritage.
 
Last edited:

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,979
Thats nice to say NOW...you vote for President Obama in '08?

I'm unmoved by the "balance of power" plea from liberals at this point in the context you used it, and the actual abuse of power in the executive branch at present.

Hasn't the executive branch been abusing power for quite some time now? Just a continuation of previous precedent?
 
Top