2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Polish Leppy 22]

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.

So where are all the minority candidates for the most important office in the country?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

So where are all the minority candidates for the most important office in the country?

There's no denying that the republican field is more diverse than the democratic field. That's primarily because Hillary is viewed as the presumptive nominee.

Beyond that, your argument is rather thin.

 

[connor_in]

The Clinton Clock - The Washington Post

Last question answered: April 21, 2015, 3 p.m. (or so). Question and response on "Clinton Cash" book reported by WMUR in New Hampshire.

Couldn't get the clock to embed

 

[GoIrish41]

So where are all the minority candidates for the most important office in the country?

Your assertion that the GOP is the party of diversity is just outrageously ridiculous. Let us know when any minority candidate has a shot in hell of securing the nomination. It is not enough to have candidates ... They have to be electable. Everyone acknowledges that Hillary is way out in front for the dems. A woman is going to be their candidate for the first time in American history. Think Carly Fiorina has any shot whatsoever? How about Carson or Jindal? Hell no! But by all means try to shamelessly exploit their "diversity" even though it means absolutely nothing and it is decidedly temporary. But then again Jeb Bush is Latino so you have got that going for you.

 

[EddytoNow]

So where are all the minority candidates for the most important office in the country?

The current president is a Democrat and bi-racial. He was the first black candidate nominated for the presidency by either party. The next president is likely to be a woman, once again a Democrat. The first female vice-presidential candidate was also a woman and a Democrat, Geraldine Ferraro.

Let's go back a few election cycles with the Republican nominees for contrast:

2012 - Mitt Romney (White Male)
2008 - John McCain (White Male - Although in a last ditch effort to gather some momentum, he did pick Sarah Palin as his running mate.)
2004 - George W. Bush (White Male)
2000 - George W. Bush (White Male)
1996 - Bob Dole (White Male)
1992 - George H.W. Bush (White Male)
1988 - George H.W. Bush (White Male)
1984 - Ronald Reagan (White Male)
1980 - Ronald Reagan (White Male)
1976 - Gerald Ford (White Male)
1972 - Richard Nixon (White Male)
1968 - Richard Nixon (White Male)
1964 - Barry Goldwater (White Male)
1960 - Richard Nixon (White Male)
1956 - Dwight Eisenhour (White Male)
1952 - Dwight Eisenhour (White Male)

So in the last 16 election cycles, the best the Republicans had to offer (other than a white male) was Sarah Palin for vice-president. And she was the choice of a desperate John McCain, not the Republican party. During that time frame their vice-presidential nominees included white males Spiro Agnew and Dan Quayle among others, neither a good argument for excluding females or minorities from their ticket.

 

[Hammer Of The Gods]

The current president is a Democrat and bi-racial. He was the first black candidate nominated for the presidency by either party. The next president is likely to be a woman, once again a Democrat. The first female vice-presidential candidate was also a woman and a Democrat, Geraldine Ferraro.

Let's go back a few election cycles with the Republican nominees for contrast:

2012 - Mitt Romney (White Male)
2008 - John McCain (White Male - Although in a last ditch effort to gather some momentum, he did pick Sarah Palin as his running mate.)
2004 - George W. Bush (White Male)
2000 - George W. Bush (White Male)
1996 - Bob Dole (White Male)
1992 - George H.W. Bush (White Male)
1988 - George H.W. Bush (White Male)
1984 - Ronald Reagan (White Male)
1980 - Ronald Reagan (White Male)
1976 - Gerald Ford (White Male)
1972 - Richard Nixon (White Male)
1968 - Richard Nixon (White Male)
1964 - Barry Goldwater (White Male)
1960 - Richard Nixon (White Male)
1956 - Dwight Eisenhour (White Male)
1952 - Dwight Eisenhour (White Male)

So in the last 16 election cycles, the best the Republicans had to offer (other than a white male) was Sarah Palin for vice-president. And she was the choice of a desperate John McCain, not the Republican party. During that time frame their vice-presidential nominees included white males Spiro Agnew and Dan Quayle among others, neither a good argument for excluding females or minorities from their ticket.

I don't disagree that the ' minority' GOP candidates are long shots at best, but the fact of the matter is that they are minorities and are running for the Republican nomination.

I don't really understand what the argument is? We're arguing over the Democrat's nominating a HALF black man for the presidency and then he won? So, Democrats are up a HALF on the all time White Presidents vs Minority Presidents win list? Congrats...I guess...

 

[EddytoNow]

I don't disagree that the ' minority' GOP candidates are long shots at best, but the fact of the matter is that they are minorities and are running for the Republican nomination.

I don't really understand what the argument is? We're arguing over the Democrat's nominating a HALF black man for the presidency and then he won? So, Democrats are up a HALF on the all time White Presidents vs Minority Presidents win list? Congrats...I guess...

I think the point is that the Republicans have actually nominated zero minorities in their history, and that pattern is not likely to change anytime soon. And while the Democrats shared that dubious honor for much of our history, they have gradually become the party of inclusion since the 1960's. They have a much larger pool of minorities and women from whom to draw presidential candidates. Until the Republican party becomes more inclusive, their pool of potential minority and female presidential candidates will remain quite small. In the last three election cycles (2008, 2012, 2016), the Democrats have shown a willingness to actually run a minority or a woman at the head of their ticket. The main point is that the Democrats are changing with the times (albeit slowly). The Republicans are stuck in the 19th century.

 

[wizards8507]

I love it. Two of the top five candidates on the Republican side are Hispanic. But they're not "real" Hispanics because they don't have a D after their names.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I love it. Two of the top five candidates on the Republican side are Hispanic. But they're not "real" Hispanics because they don't have a D after their names.

I don't think that's what people have said. That's certainly not what I said. The fact is that the party as a whole is not very diverse (see the graphs above).

 

[wizards8507]

I don't think that's what people have said. That's certainly not what I said. The fact is that the party as a whole is not very diverse (see the graphs above).

The graph is very misleading. Minorities are highly concentrated in cities and urban areas vote Democrat. It's no more complicated than that.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

The graph is very misleading. Minorities are highly concentrated in cities and urban areas vote Democrat. It's no more complicated than that.

You don't think it has anything to do with Republican policies?

 

[wizards8507]

You don't think it has anything to do with Republican policies?

I've never heard of a Republican policy that was anything other than race-neutral. I think it has a lot more to do with how Republican policies are presented in the media and pop culture than the substance of the policies themselves.

 

[connor_in]

You don't think it has anything to do with Republican policies?

I am sure it has to do with the Republican policies after all Baltimore and Detroit and Chicago have all been heavily influenced by Republican policies. Also, those 8 out of the last 23 years when Republicans were president were also heavily influenced things.

 

[pkt77242]

I am sure it has to do with the Republican policies after all Baltimore and Detroit and Chicago have all been heavily influenced by Republican policies. Also, those 8 out of the last 23 years when Republicans were president were also heavily influenced things.

Or you could say 20 out of the last 35 years we have had a Republican President.

 

[EddytoNow]

I love it. Two of the top five candidates on the Republican side are Hispanic. But they're not "real" Hispanics because they don't have a D after their names.

I never questioned Rubio's or Cruz's ethnicity. What I pounted out is that the Republicans have never nominated anyone other than a white male. Anyone can declare themselves a candidate. Republican primary voters did not choose Cruz, Rubio, or Fiorina (the woman candidate). They chose themselves at this point. It remains to be seen whether they have much support in Republican primaries. The fact is the Republicans haven't ever chosen a minority or a woman as their nominee for president. Cruz has virtually no support outside the extremists on the right, so I doubt he will be emerging as the Republican presidential candidate. Rubio is actually a viable candiate in a general election, but he will be hard-pressed to win the Republican nomination. He will have a tough time beating out the white male candidates in all but Florida and a few states in the southwest. His ethnicity will not help in the Republican primaries, because there is only a small Hispanic voting block in that party. He would do much better in a general election than he will in a Republican primary.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

There's no denying that the republican field is more diverse than the democratic field. That's primarily because Hillary is viewed as the presumptive nominee.

Beyond that, your argument is rather thin.

That's all my argument was. Easy on the pie charts.With that said I expected the left to come up with someone better than Billary after their beloved, historic, social justice community organizer

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Your assertion that the GOP is the party of diversity is just outrageously ridiculous. Let us know when any minority candidate has a shot in hell of securing the nomination. It is not enough to have candidates ... They have to be electable. Everyone acknowledges that Hillary is way out in front for the dems. A woman is going to be their candidate for the first time in American history. Think Carly Fiorina has any shot whatsoever? How about Carson or Jindal? Hell no! But by all means try to shamelessly exploit their "diversity" even though it means absolutely nothing and it is decidedly temporary. But then again Jeb Bush is Latino so you have got that going for you.

I have a hard time taking you seriously after your disgusting comments last week about the art contest and everyone slapped you around.

Hillary is out in front due to her last name, not her first. Don't kid yourself. As for the right I pray it's Rand or Walker with Rubio or Carson as VP.

 

[pkt77242]

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.

So working for a law firm and teaching at University of Chicago Law are not real jobs?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

You don't think it has anything to do with Republican policies?

No, wizards hit the nail on the head. Every large metro city in the US is predominantly Democrat and have been electing Democratic majorities for decades.

 

[GoIrish41]

I have a hard time taking you seriously after your disgusting comments last week about the art contest and everyone slapped you around.

Hillary is out in front due to her last name, not her first. Don't kid yourself. As for the right I pray it's Rand or Walker with Rubio or Carson as VP.

Yeah well I have a hard time taking you seriously when you suggest the GOP is the party of diversity.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Yeah well I have a hard time taking you seriously when you suggest the GOP is the party of diversity.

I never made that claim. Just pointed out reality in the 2016 field so far. Nice try. Play again.

 

[Domina Nostra]

So working for a law firm and teaching at University of Chicago Law are not real jobs?

What is a "real" job?

Teaching at a Universtity part time while you are pursuing tons of other things is not a real job, IMHO. It may be meaningful, interesting, noble, worthwhile, etc., but that is not a real job.

Working at a law firm counts. But if you are doing highly political/idealogical cases all the time, it might diminish the "realness" of it, insofar as we are tlaking about having some experience outside of the ideological/political/abstract world of academia and politics.

For example, "lobbying" is only half "real."

Not sure Cruz has any more real world experience under my metric.

 

[GoIrish41]

I never made that claim. Just pointed out reality in the 2016 field so far. Nice try. Play again.

Then what the hell are you saying? That all 238 republicans who are running are not white men? And since there are only a handful of democrats running they are less diverse because all three are white? So what! A white dude is going to be the GOP candidate! And that white dude is going to lose the general election.

Most democrats do not believe they have a chance to win so they are not running. It seems that EVERY republican thinks he or she has a shot to win (even though most absolutely do not) no matter what race or gender they are. They are coming out of the woodwork because, truth be told, there is not one strong candidate in the whole republican field (and there has not been in several cycles). They all think they can win because the are collectively weak. The one who does make it through because he or she successfully panders to the richest doner lords gets to be the latest in a line of losers who does not have the ability to both gain the support of their party and at the same time appeal to the whole nation. Jayhawk was correct. It is about republican policies. Until they come around to the what the society has evolved into and stop trying to turn back the clock to the 1950s, they will continue to struggle in national elections.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Then what the hell are you saying? That all 238 republicans who are running are not white men? And since there are only a handful of democrats running they are less diverse because all three are white? So what! A white dude is going to be the GOP candidate! And that white dude is going to lose the general election.

Most democrats do not believe they have a chance to win so they are not running. It seems that EVERY republican thinks he or she has a shot to win (even though most absolutely do not) no matter what race or gender they are. They are coming out of the woodwork because, truth be told, there is not one strong candidate in the whole republican field (and there has not been in several cycles). They all think they can win because the are collectively weak. The one who does make it through because he or she successfully panders to the richest doner lords gets to be the latest in a line of losers who does not have the ability to both gain the support of their party and at the same time appeal to the whole nation. Jayhawk was correct. It is about republican policies. Until they come around to the what the society has evolved into and stop trying to turn back the clock to the 1950s, they will continue to struggle in national elections.

You are brilliant. GOP should hire you as a consultant. My point was what it was (no diversity for the biggest office in the country), you tried to make it look like I said something else, and now you're trying to change topic completely.

You're really off your game in the past few weeks. Let it go

 

[EddytoNow]

I have a hard time taking you seriously after your disgusting comments last week about the art contest and everyone slapped you around.

Hillary is out in front due to her last name, not her first. Don't kid yourself. As for the right I pray it's Rand or Walker with Rubio or Carson as VP.

Hm. Rand (white male) or Walker (white male). You are reinforcing what I've been saying, which is only a white male has a chance to head the Republican ticket. The two minorities you list are both relegated to the role of expandng the appeal of yet another white male at the head of the Republican ticket. When will a Rubio or Carson actually have a chance to be the Republican standard bearer in a presidential election?

 

[T Town Tommy]

Hm. Rand (white male) or Walker (white male). You are reinforcing what I've been saying, which is only a white male has a chance to head the Republican ticket. The two minorities you list are both relegated to the role of expandng the appeal of yet another white male at the head of the Republican ticket. When will a Rubio or Carson actually have a chance to be the Republican standard bearer in a presidential election?

I think Rubio has just as good a shot as any right now. I don't think it is wise to dismiss him as a potential nominee just yet.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Harping about the race of candidates is dumb.

 

[connor_in]

Hm. Rand (white male) or Walker (white male). You are reinforcing what I've been saying, which is only a white male has a chance to head the Republican ticket. The two minorities you list are both relegated to the role of expandng the appeal of yet another white male at the head of the Republican ticket. When will a Rubio or Carson actually have a chance to be the Republican standard bearer in a presidential election?

How are you translating that Leppy's personal wants are the only chances for the head of the ticket? Is he THE ONE that gets to choose with no others having a say?

As I recall, at this point in the 2008 race, HRC was inevitable and BO was a guy who was thinking of running and had given a nice speech previously. The point being no one is necessarily inevitable.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Hm. Rand (white male) or Walker (white male). You are reinforcing what I've been saying, which is only a white male has a chance to head the Republican ticket. The two minorities you list are both relegated to the role of expandng the appeal of yet another white male at the head of the Republican ticket. When will a Rubio or Carson actually have a chance to be the Republican standard bearer in a presidential election?

Right around the same time when Dem politicians stop bribing minority voters and more voters punch a ticket for limited government and economic growth.

 

[wizards8507]

When will a Rubio or Carson actually have a chance to be the Republican standard bearer in a presidential election?

Um... 2016? Rubio is running at #2 in many polls and the base hates Jeb.

Using your backwards logic, I guess the Democrats must REALLY hate Hispanics, right? Where are all their Hispanic nominees?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.