2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Bogtrotter07]

Just to jump in with a request. Could the title of this thread be changed from "Horse Race" to "Election." I don't like the connotation of this being a "sporting event," "a game of chance," or an allusion to the sport of "Kings." And I like horses way too much!

I will unsubscribe from this thread, take a shower, and wait patiently for my answer off-line!

 

[Bluto]

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.



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.

Why are people still pushing this Obama is as left as it gets fallacy?

Here's the thing he is a corporatist who supports free trade (should appeal to the free market cheerleaders), he is not as much of an imperialist/interventionist as Reagan or Bush 2 (should appeal to Liberatarians), he has used drones to assassinate people in violation of international law and is the Commander in Chief who authorized the Bin Laden raid (should appeal to the Neo Con warmongers) and lastly it looks as though he is going to support decriminalizing whacky tabacky (should appeal to young Libretarians). With all that in mind I am not seeing this left as it gets malarkey.

 

[phgreek]

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

The post I responded to talked about the "ballance of power" in terms of congress and the president's political affiliation. That "fear" likely did not deter too many liberals in recent years, yet I hear this fairly frequently NOW....and it comes off like an anti-doping add from Lance Armstrong...NOW.

As for my belief there is executive abuse...so your response is...everyone else did it...first. So this president ran on slogans that said "same shit different day then". NO? "Others did it first" comes off as though politicians do not have the ability to restrain themselves based on the conduct of those who came before ... just ridiculous.

Spare me the "he had to DO something schtick...I don't want to hear it. The precedent(s) he should have paid attention to is how to be a politician. Enough has been written by neutral folks like Bob Woodward to tell me Mr. Obama demonstrated an inability to self-evaluate, self-moderate, and to separate personal shit from the job he promised everyone he'd do...so we are more united today? No?

 

[Bluto]

The post I responded to talked about the "ballance of power" in terms of congress and the president's political affiliation. That "fear" likely did not deter too many liberals in recent years, yet I hear this fairly frequently NOW....and it comes off like an anti-doping add from Lance Armstrong...NOW.

As for my belief there is executive abuse...so your response is...everyone else did it...first. So this president ran on slogans that said "same shit different day then". NO? "Others did it first" comes off as though politicians do not have the ability to restrain themselves based on the conduct of those who came before ... just ridiculous.

Spare me the "he had to DO something schtick...I don't want to hear it. The precedent(s) he should have paid attention to is how to be a politician. Enough has been written by neutral folks like Bob Woodward to tell me Mr. Obama demonstrated an inability to self-evaluate, self-moderate, and to separate personal shit from the job he promised everyone he'd do...so we are more united today? No?

You're kind of making a bunch of assumptions about my post. Here's my point, every president in the last how ever many years has overstep their authority (particularly when it comes to war) and or made crap up during campaigns and have had to increasingly suck up to money. That's how one goes about being a successful Presidential or Congressional candidate from either side in the US. It's not a Barack Obama problem it's an American institutional problem. Unfortunately a majority of the current SCOTUS seems to think that having to suck up to money is not a problem. That being the case all this hand wringing and anger over Obama being this or that (particularly from free market proponents because the President is clearly aligned with large corporate interests/free market proponents) is in my opinion completely miss directed, naive and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what the fundamental problems are in the American political process.

 

[Black Irish]

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.

I believe all of that, but it's just an extension of my point. I'd wager that the people in the Latino press who are beating up on Rubio are likely left-leaning types who would not go for a GOP candidate anyway. If Rubio gets the GOP nomination or becomes someone's VP candidate, how does the national MSM handle him? Explaining leftist contempt towards a Latino candidate requires explaining the fact that Hispanics in this country are not a homogenous voting block, like black Americans largely are. That may be too tricky a task for the average large MSM outlet to handle. MY guess is that they'll mostly gloss over Rubio being a Latino and just focus on the fact that he's a conservative Republican.

 

[Bluto]

I believe all of that, but it's just an extension of my point. I'd wager that the people in the Latino press who are beating up on Rubio are likely left-leaning types who would not go for a GOP candidate anyway. If Rubio gets the GOP nomination or becomes someone's VP candidate, how the national MSM handles him. Explaining leftist contempt towards a Latino candidate requires explaining the fact that Hispanics in this country are not a homogenous voting block, like black Americans largely are. That may be too tricky a task for the average large MSM outlet to handle. MY guess is that they'll mostly gloss over Rubio being a Latino and just focus on the fact that he's a conservative Republican.

Actually a large number of Latinos in the media business are of Cuban descent (or at least they were back in the 80's). You're probably right about many being more "leftist" when compared to the average American voter but one need only look at US Foreign Policy in Latin America (with the Republican sweetheart Ronald Reagan being the poster boy) and the treatment of Mexican migrants and "guest workers" from Central America to understand why. The effects of those policies (death, war, oppression and poverty) are not an abstract they are instead a concrete reality for many Latinos. I know they had a profound effect on my father's (a very devoute Catholic) world view. He's pro life but equates the GOP with Satan. Lol.

 

[phgreek]

You're kind of making a bunch of assumptions about my post. Here's my point, every president in the last how ever many years has overstep their authority (particularly when it comes to war) and or made crap up during campaigns and have had to increasingly suck up to money. That's how one goes about being a successful Presidential or Congressional candidate from either side in the US. It's not a Barack Obama problem it's an American institutional problem. Unfortunately a majority of the current SCOTUS seems to think that having to suck up to money is not a problem. That being the case all this hand wringing and anger over Obama being this or that (particularly from free market proponents because the President is clearly aligned with large corporate interests/free market proponents) is in my opinion completely miss directed, naive and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what the fundamental problems are in the American political process.

As I spin back to the original point, that liberals seem awfully concerned about "ballance of power" as relates to political affiliation of congress and president...now, I'm not sure where campaign finance was alluded to. As relates to my comment about presidential powers abuse, I don't recall alluding to campaign finance...albeit a part of the issue regarding presidential overreach, for sure. That said, money has always been in politics. It is a problem, and more pronounced as of late. It was a problem for those who came before Mr. Obama, and each seemed to "lean into the punches" and focus on doing the really hard part of the job...which is to be a better politician after the election than before...THAT is squarely on Mr. Obama, and can't be dismissed by campaign finance issues.

 

[DomeX2 eNVy]

Waka Flacka needs to be added to the OP for the Green Party.
Rapper Waka Flocka Flame blazes 2016 Trail - CNNPolitics.com

If only he was old enough - stupid constitution

 

[DomeX2 eNVy]

Dr. Ben Carson is officially in, and polling at a little over 5% with the Republicans.
Carly Fiorina is next up, and then Mike Huckabee

 

[DomeX2 eNVy]

Carly is officially running. I'm not sure she did such a good job at HP, but good luck to her.

 

[connor_in]

Not directly tied to a candidate, but the polls have started and I figured this would be a good place for this (especially since I try not to put political cartoons in the funny pics thread as that isn't where the belong)

 

[GoIrish41]

Are there any Republicans who are not running for president?

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Are there any Republicans who are not running for president?

Donald Trump and Sarah Palin.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Are there any Republicans who are not running for president?

Barnes & Nobles has plenty of room for their books on the shelves, so it makes sense for more to join.

 

[EddytoNow]

Running for president isn't about having a chance to actually win the election, it's all about marketing one's self for the next big money payout. Run for president, have a ghost writer write your story, and cash in. Or run for president and get a cushy media job following your unsuccessful bid for election. Or run for president and go on a speaking tour at multiple thousands of dollars per pop.

Huckabee and Palin cashed in with gigs on Fox. The Clintons cashed in on the speaking tour. If we take the Republican and Democratic fields, who would you bet on to secure a job with Fox News or MSNBC following their unsuccessful bid for the Democratic or Republican nomination. Should we take a poll?

Which of the following will likely have a nightly or weekly show on Fox News or MSNBC following the 2016 election cycle? Who will cash in the most following their loss?

Democrats

Clinton
Warren
Sanders
Biden

Republicans

Cruz
Bush
Rubio
Christie
Fiorina
Carson
Paul
Huckabee

On the Democratic side, I would put my money on Clinton to profit the most from a loss and Biden to end up on MSNBC?

On the Republican side, I would put my money on Cruz to end up on Fox and Christie to either write a book or cash in with a speaking tour.

 

[phgreek]

Running for president isn't about having a chance to actually win the election, it's all about marketing one's self for the next big money payout. Run for president, have a ghost writer write your story, and cash in. Or run for president and get a cushy media job following your unsuccessful bid for election. Or run for president and go on a speaking tour at multiple thousands of dollars per pop.

Huckabee and Palin cashed in with gigs on Fox. The Clintons cashed in on the speaking tour. If we take the Republicanand Democratic fields, who would you bet on to secure a job with Fox News or MSNBC following their unsuccessful bid for the Republican nomination. Should we take a poll?

Which of the following will likely have a nightly or weekly show on Fox News or MSNBC following the 2016 election cycle? Who will cash in the most following their loss?

Democrats

Clinton
Warren
Sanders
Biden

Republicans

Cruz
Bush
Rubio
Christie
Fiorina
Carson
Paul
Huckabee

On the Democratic side, I would put my money on Clinton to profit the most from a loss and Biden to end up on MSNBC?

On the Republican side, I would put my money on Cruz to end up on Fox and Christie to either write a book or cash in with a speaking tour.

...I saw the hucksters launch...he is more polished than '08...his message has some appeal...that someone who can win should steal. Beat the shit out of the IRS, address the tax code in real person terms, frown on Gov. growth, positive message of economic growth and opportunity.

He can't win...but if Bush/Rubio swiped parts of his blueprint, gained his ability to connect to people, and added immigration reform...the Rs might have something.

Right now all I see is monkeys and footballs...

 

[pkt77242]

...I saw the hucksters launch...he is more polished than '08...his message has some appeal...that someone who can win should steal. Beat the shit out of the IRS, address the tax code in real person terms, frown on Gov. growth, positive message of economic growth and opportunity.

He can't win...but if Bush/Rubio swiped parts of his blueprint, gained his ability to connect to people, and added immigration reform...the Rs might have something.

Right now all I see is monkeys and footballs...

I didn't see his launch but this article does a good job of looking at some of his claims.

The former Republican governor of Arkansas spoke for about a half hour on May 5 in his birthplace of Hope, Ark. Among his claims:

• Huckabee said "93 million Americans don't have jobs." That's misleading. There are 93.8 million Americans who are not in the workforce, but only 6.1 million of them want a job, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As we have written, the vast majority are students, stay-at-home parents, retired seniors and others who do not want to work. In fact, 37.3 million of the 93.8 million, or 40%, are 65 years old or older.

• In touting his accomplishments as governor, Huckabee said "we passed 94 tax cuts." We wrote about this multiple times when he ran for president in 2008. There were 94 tax cuts and 21 tax increases under Huckabee, resulting in a $505.1 million net increase in taxes.

• Huckabee, who was governor from July 1996 to January 2007, also claimed "we saw family income increase by 50% during my tenure." That does not account for inflation. As we just wrote, median household income rose 9.3 percent from 1995 to 2006 in inflation-adjusted dollars.

• In criticizing Washington for failing to keep its promise to seniors, Huckabee claimed "Congress took $700 billion out of Medicare to pay for Obamacare." This is a Whopper we have written about multiple times. The Affordable Care Act reduces the future growth of Medicare by an estimated $716 billion over 10 years, mostly by reducing future hospital and Medicare Advantage payments. The ACA, which also increased revenues, will improve Medicare's finances.

Fact check: Huckabee repeats discredited claims

 

[brick4956]

Carly Fiorina almost destroyed HP and Bell Labs would be a horrible choice for any government positiion

 

[connor_in]

I didn't see his launch but this article does a good job of looking at some of his claims.



Fact check: Huckabee repeats discredited claims

I an not for Huckabee, but you can write that article about pretty much any politician that runs for or is/has been president

 

[dublinirish]

The General Election in the United Kingdom runs tomorrow:
General election 2015 | The Guardian

Be interesting to see if the Conservatives get back in or Labour gets back in with the support of the SNP.

 

[phgreek]

I an not for Huckabee, but you can write that article about pretty much any politician that runs for or is/has been president

...well anyone that says anything remotely like a position...SMH.

On the Dem side, the potential list looks like this

The Queen of all things wrong with DC
The Cherokee Professor
The Socialist
The Walking Identity Crisis
Walter (when Jeff Dunham isn't using him)
People who are Governors and should get the attention of the party, but won't

This is BEFORE anyone has SAID ANYTHING remotely like a position...

 

[Black Irish]

I don't see this as a cash or publicity grab by too many who have declared. A lot of these people can check out of politics right now and line up a sweet consulting or commentating deal. I think many of these people truly have the ego that tells them "Yeah, I can do it. Why not me?"

 

[connor_in]

 

[EddytoNow]

I don't see this as a cash or publicity grab by too many who have declared. A lot of these people can check out of politics right now and line up a sweet consulting or commentating deal. I think many of these people truly have the ego that tells them "Yeah, I can do it. Why not me?"

And why is it they could line up a sweet consulting or commentary deal? It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that they continue to seek ways to get the media's attention, or could it?

To name just a few. Who would have paid Ted Cruz as a consultant or as a commentator prior to his constant attacks on Obama and his campaign for the presidency? And who actually thinks Ted Cruz has a shot in **** of being elected president? Ted Cruz doesn't even believe that. He's a snake-oil salesman, nothing more. Mike Huckabee was an unknown (nationally) governor of a small state prior to his campaign for president. He has certainly taken advantage of the cash cow available to him following his failed bid. And the poster child for the "Look at me. I'm important." crowd, Sarah Palin was a governor who actually quit mid-term to cash in on her new media fame.

 

[wizards8507]

Who would have paid Ted Cruz as a consultant or as a commentator prior to his constant attacks on Obama and his campaign for the presidency? And who actually thinks Ted Cruz has a shot in **** of being elected president? Ted Cruz doesn't even believe that. He's a snake-oil salesman, nothing more.

You can't be that clueless about his history. Or maybe you can?

Ted Cruz has argued nine cases in front of the United States Supreme Court. He has degrees from Princeton and Harvard Law. He's actually held REAL jobs besides "community organizer" and "politician." But yeah, he's totally a snake-oil salesman. Definitely way less qualified than Big O.

 

[EddytoNow]

You can't be that clueless about his history. Or maybe you can?

Ted Cruz has argued nine cases in front of the United States Supreme Court. He has degrees from Princeton and Harvard Law. He's actually held REAL jobs besides "community organizer" and "politician." But yeah, he's totally a snake-oil salesman. Definitely way less qualified than Big O.

I'll count you among the 5% of Republicans (1-2% of the population as a whole) who will vote for Ted Cruz.

Regarding his new found fame. There are plenty of lawyers who have argued cases before the Supreme Court. The average citizen couldn't name a single one of them. Nor would they watch them on TV. And they couldn't name Ted Cruz before his run for president and his daily attacks on Obama. I stand by my claim that Ted Cruz's national audience is the direct result of his pandering to the far right, bashing Obama and the Affordable Health Care Act, and running for president, not the fact that he argued cases before the Supreme Court.

When the 2016 election has passed, Ted Cruz's best hope for continued relevance to the media would be a Hillary Clinton victory. He could then continue his new-found career as the far right's attack dog.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Ted Cruz is the embodiment of all of the GOP's problems. He strikes me as that very intelligent debate team douche who everyone wonders if he might be a sociopath.

Also this makes me laugh and cringe simultaneously:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/x2ZVihACwQ0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I'll count you among the 5% of Republicans (1-2% of the population as a whole) who will vote for Ted Cruz.

Regarding his new found fame. There are plenty of lawyers who have argued cases before the Supreme Court. The average citizen couldn't name a single one of them. Nor would they watch them on TV. And they couldn't name Ted Cruz before his run for president and his daily attacks on Obama. I stand by my claim that Ted Cruz's national audience is the direct result of his pandering to the far right, bashing Obama and the Affordable Health Care Act, and running for president, not the fact that he argued cases before the Supreme Court.

When the 2016 election has passed, Ted Cruz's best hope for continued relevance to the media would be a Hillary Clinton victory. He could then continue his new-found career as the far right's attack dog.

Knowing about the man and his history does not automatically equate to voting for him.

So far all the candidates for 2016 from the left are old, white and rich. #whiteprivilege

 

[pkt77242]

Knowing about the man and his history does not automatically equate to voting for him.

So far all the candidates for 2016 from the left are old, white and rich. #whiteprivilege

Bernie Sanders isn't rich (not that he is poor) but nice try.

 

[EddytoNow]

Knowing about the man and his history does not automatically equate to voting for him.

So far all the candidates for 2016 from the left are old, white and rich. #whiteprivilege

Regarding your first point I will concede that even Republicans will have a hard time voting for Ted Cruz. The more you know, the less there is to like.

Regarding which party has more diversity, I wouldn't go there. The left has a far greater representation of races, incomes, genders, ages, etc. in elected office than the right. They also got 95% of the black vote and 73% of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election. Anyone who has watched both the Democatic and Republican Conventions knows there is far more diversity among Democratic office holders. At the last Republican Presidential Convention white males were in such a large majority that few females or minorities were available to put in front of the cameras. Demographics don't look good for the Republicans nationally.