2016 Presidential Horse Race

[wizards8507]

I like Sanders a lot, but do not think he is going to move the needle very much in the primaries. Hillary will set the tone for the Dems and right now, she appears to be running against the GOP field and seems content to watch the slew of candidates try to position themselves right of the competition.

Sanders appeals to the certain key "far left" demographics, college students chief among them. Young people were crucial to Obama's momentum (against Hillary) in 2008 and Sanders is looking to ride that same wave in 2016. Democrats might like Hillary in general, but very few are actually excited about her. Don't forget, she was the "preemptive nominee" eight years ago too, until a relative unknown with a good convention speech under his belt stole the spotlight.

ETA: How exactly is Hillary setting the tone of anything? She went a month without answering questions from the media. She's out there making speeches but hasn't actually SAID anything of substance.

I'm no expert, but I believe the further right the GOP pack travels, the more Hillary is in a position of comfort heading into the general -- no matter the Republican nominee.

Except the GOP pack isn't moving to the right. They're already there. It's not about trying to move to the middle to attract the moderates, it's about selling the moderates on why we should try conservatism (like Reagan was able to do when he won 44 states in 1980 and 49 states in 1984). I also don't view the GOP candidates as a "pack". They're pretty distinct.

The establishment - Bush
The likable conservative - Rubio
The libertarian - Paul
The hard-liner - Cruz
The preacher - Huckabee
The outsider - Carson
The governors - Walker / Kasich / Christie
The businesswoman - Fiorina

In that group, Rand Paul has an exciting opportunity to redefine what "moving to the right" even means. Cruz and Paul filibustered the use of drone strikes on American citizens overseas. By contemporary political standards, that's a position to the left of Barack Obama. Rand is out there promising to do "whatever it takes" to stop the re-authorization of Patriot Act spying powers. That's hardly Bush-Cheney era conservatism.

 

[Black Irish]

IMO Hillary doesn't have to do much of anything right now but build a war chest. She doesn't have to engage Sanders or Warren or any other Dem candidate/potential candidate at all. And there's no need for her to battle a field of GOP contenders; she can just wait until the GOP nominates a candidate and argue against one person. Hillary can just keep her mouth shut, pull in cash, and let everyone else crash on the rocks until the general election.

 

[wizards8507]

IMO Hillary doesn't have to do much of anything right now but build a war chest. She doesn't have to engage Sanders or Warren or any other Dem candidate/potential candidate at all. And there's no need for her to battle a field of GOP contenders; she can just wait until the GOP nominates a candidate and argue against one person. Hillary can just keep her mouth shut, pull in cash, and let everyone else crash on the rocks until the general election.

I'd generally agree if the media was behaving in the way they normally do. But liberal outlets including the New York Times seem to be out to get her. She has a ton of skeletons in her closet and the NYT seems hell bent on revealing all of them.

 

[GoIrish41]

Sanders appeals to the certain key "far left" demographics, college students chief among them. Young people were crucial to Obama's momentum (against Hillary) in 2008 and Sanders is looking to ride that same wave in 2016. Democrats might like Hillary in general, but very few are actually excited about her. Don't forget, she was the "preemptive nominee" eight years ago too, until a relative unknown with a good convention speech under his belt stole the spotlight.

ETA: How exactly is Hillary setting the tone of anything? She went a month without answering questions from the media. She's out there making speeches but hasn't actually SAID anything of substance.


Except the GOP pack isn't moving to the right. They're already there. It's not about trying to move to the middle to attract the moderates, it's about selling the moderates on why we should try conservatism (like Reagan was able to do when he won 44 states in 1980 and 49 states in 1984). I also don't view the GOP candidates as a "pack". They're pretty distinct.

The establishment - Bush
The likable conservative - Rubio
The libertarian - Paul
The hard-liner - Cruz
The preacher - Huckabee
The outsider - Carson
The governors - Walker / Kasich / Christie
The businesswoman - Fiorina

In that group, Rand Paul has an exciting opportunity to redefine what "moving to the right" even means. Cruz and Paul filibustered the use of drone strikes on American citizens overseas. By contemporary political standards, that's a position to the left of Barack Obama. Rand is out there promising to do "whatever it takes" to stop the re-authorization of Patriot Act spying powers. That's hardly Bush-Cheney era conservatism.

The Republican candidates will likely do what they always do during the primaries. They will move to the right to appeal to the base of the party. When one of them gets traction, the others will move to try to overtake them, which will push the entire field to the right. This is the best case scenario for Hillary because she will run against the candidate that has successfully navigated the primaries and, if the past several cycles are our guide, will be further right than where they started in the process. She will then use those artifically right positions to attack them in the general election. Because there is no real legitimate contender running against Hillary on the left, she will not be forced to change her positions too much. She has already signaled where she is going. She is distancing herself from some of her husband's policies that went south (NAFTA for example) and has "set the tone" by appearing to be a little more left than she has typically been in the past because, it seems, her calculation is that is where the electorate is going to be in the general election. She also is trying to capitalize on her support for issues that appeal to women, which is her sweet spot in the general election IMO. If she does well with women, this general election is probably not going to be that close -- especially since appealing to the GOP base has historically meant opposing legislation that provides equality of pay for women, contaceptiive care, funding for education, etc. This, of course, is in addition to the Dems historic support for immigration reform, and provision to help the poor, which appeals to Latino voters. She might not get anyone pushing her to the left from the primaries, but the GOP will certainly be further right as a group than they are today. I think she is counting on it and I think all of this puts the GOP in a tight spot for the 2016 presidental election.

 

[phgreek]

I'd generally agree if the media was behaving in the way they normally do. But liberal outlets including the New York Times seem to be out to get her. She has a ton of skeletons in her closet and the NYT seems hell bent on revealing all of them.

NYT is just throwing all the stuff out there so when she finally starts talking it'll all have been covered by her attack dogs, and deemed old news. Other outlets will perpetuate the "not a shred of evidence" type line.

Think of NYT as the beginning of the conveyor belt. They feed the bad stuff into the public domain, and the other outlets put it in containers at the other end of the conveyor. Having been contained, the political operatives will claim its all been dealt with, and voters assume it was all resolved because they "heard something about that, but it turned out to be nothing".

As for those who don't buy the faux media routine, the Democrat model is to viciously attack and belittle them, or sick other government agencies on them, and even when people are proven correct...too late.

Bottom line is, the people that would vote for her will.

 

[wizards8507]

Bottom line is, the people that would vote for her will.

It's not that simple. Turnout matters. I'm not suggesting that the Democrat base are going to turn into Ted Cruz supporters, but she's not an exciting candidate. It's going to be difficult for her to reassemble the Obama coalition.

GOP base has historically meant opposing legislation that provides equality of pay for women.

Hillary Clinton, as senator, paid women 72 cents on every dollar paid to men: report - Washington Times

No, Women Don’t Make Less Money Than Men - The Daily Beast

contaceptiive care,

Buy your own birth control. Promiscuity is not a medical condition.

 

[Hammer Of The Gods]

The Republican candidates will likely do what they always do during the primaries. They will move to the right to appeal to the base of the party. When one of them gets traction, the others will move to try to overtake them, which will push the entire field to the right. This is the best case scenario for Hillary because she will run against the candidate that has successfully navigated the primaries and, if the past several cycles are our guide, will be further right than where they started in the process. She will then use those artifically right positions to attack them in the general election. Because there is no real legitimate contender running against Hillary on the left, she will not be forced to change her positions too much. She has already signaled where she is going. She is distancing herself from some of her husband's policies that went south (NAFTA for example) and has "set the tone" by appearing to be a little more left than she has typically been in the past because, it seems, her calculation is that is where the electorate is going to be in the general election. She also is trying to capitalize on her support for issues that appeal to women, which is her sweet spot in the general election IMO. If she does well with women, this general election is probably not going to be that close -- especially since appealing to the GOP base has historically meant opposing legislation that provides equality of pay for women, contaceptiive care, funding for education, etc. This, of course, is in addition to the Dems historic support for immigration reform, and provision to help the poor, which appeals to Latino voters. She might not get anyone pushing her to the left from the primaries, but the GOP will certainly be further right as a group than they are today. I think she is counting on it and I think all of this puts the GOP in a tight spot for the 2016 presidental election.

Question. Slightly off topic, but since it appears you're pretty much team Hilary, or at least going to vote for her if she does in fact get the Democratic Nomination. Does she seem exceptionally unfriendly? She just seems to be pissed 24/7 and confrontational. She just comes across so unlikable to me.

I will fully admit that i'm pretty hard right, but honest to god, putting that aside she just seems brutal. Bill for instance, who policy wise a disagree with, I totally would drink a beer with him and ask for all the gory details about all the muff he's pounded. He just seems cool. Hilary...yikes.

 

[wizards8507]

Rand Paul: 'Whatever it takes to stop' Patriot Act - CNNPolitics.com

Kind of flies in the face of everyone's musing that the GOP field is going to be flying to the right.

 

[connor_in]

I don't see how HRC can be elected...wasn't she "co-president" '92-'00?

 

[Hammer Of The Gods]

Rand Paul: 'Whatever it takes to stop' Patriot Act - CNNPolitics.com

Kind of flies in the face of everyone's musing that the GOP field is going to be flying to the right.

Stand with Rand

 

[GoIrish41]

Question. Slightly off topic, but since it appears you're pretty much team Hilary, or at least going to vote for her if she does in fact get the Democratic Nomination. Does she seem exceptionally unfriendly? She just seems to be pissed 24/7 and confrontational. She just comes across so unlikable to me.

I will fully admit that i'm pretty hard right, but honest to god, putting that aside she just seems brutal. Bill for instance, who policy wise a disagree with, I totally would drink a beer with him and ask for all the gory details about all the muff he's pounded. He just seems cool. Hilary...yikes.

Not a big Hillary fan, personnally. I much prefer Sanders and really wish Warren would throw her hat in the ring.

I don't know that I think she is exceptionally unfriendly. I'd say Dick Cheyney is exceptionally unfriendly -- like if he actually cracked a smile his face would shatter into a million shards of ice. But, I will acknowledge that she does not have that folksy comfort level communicating with voters as her husband had. She always seems pretty scripted. She's also not terribly good at hiding when she is pissed, but she also has the ability to joke around a little, too. I'm not certain I will vote for Hillary. In fact, I might go as far as saying I will not vote for her in the primaries but I never voted for Bill either.

 

[GoIrish41]

It's not that simple. Turnout matters. I'm not suggesting that the Democrat base are going to turn into Ted Cruz supporters, but she's not an exciting candidate. It's going to be difficult for her to reassemble the Obama coalition.


Hillary Clinton, as senator, paid women 72 cents on every dollar paid to men: report - Washington Times

No, Women Don’t Make Less Money Than Men - The Daily Beast



Buy your own birth control. Promiscuity is not a medical condition.

Many womens' medical issues are treated with contraceptives. It is not just birth control.

 

[dshans]

Stand with Rand

Ayn?

 

[RDU Irish]

My problem with the rising costs of higher education is that people just want to keep throwing money at it. Instead of addressing the real issue of us pushing every kid into higher education simply because "it's the right thing to do" instead of offering assistance in getting them employment skills. Kids are leaving college at alarming rates without actually going into a chosen field.

As a banker, I can attest that the most difficult issue facing small to medium business in my area is finding qualified employees. Meanwhile, we have a 7.1% unemployment rate with significantly rising costs in higher education. Am I taking crazy pills or are people simply acquiring massive debt in order to obtain the wrong kind of education?

That's why I hated the legislation offering two free years of community college. Depending on who you ask (feds vs AACC) the rate of graduation of community college students is somewhere between 18-40%. But most end up leaving with student loan debt.

Schools are ran like businesses, so we should treat them as such. If we are concerned with kids not getting good educations, creating too much debt and competing with international workforces. Then we should address the demand curve for their services, not just making it easier for more students (customers) to dilute the product and create higher demand (costs).

Make colleges pick up the tab for bankrupted student loans they issued. Why shouldn't they co-sign on the future success of these kids instead of making it the only debt that can't be shaken in bankruptcy? Problem solved almost overnight.

As of CC students, most max out student loans to pay for a couple hundred dollars of books and fees. Then cash the check for the remaining amount and buy all kinds of stuff. It is criminal the feds/colleges make it so freaking easy. Credit Card companies at least have to eat the bad debt bill when BK is claimed and their immoral acts come home to roost.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Many womens' medical issues are treated with contraceptives. It is not just birth control.

You aren't seriously arguing that are you? I have a friend who can give me plenty of ammo to disprove that assertion. There are issues that can be "treated" with contraceptives but there are more specific "treatments" that can be used for any one of those issues.

And since I know so many people believe the pill is a great product of the modern scientific experiment:

Oral Contraceptive pill use is associated with localized decreases in cortical thickness

We've grown up in a world where we say blessed is the barren womb and then drug our wives and daughters, changing their brain physiology and therefore their life patterns.

scientia vincere femina

 

[connor_in]

Ayn?

Who is dshans?

 

[dshans]

Many womens' medical issues are treated with contraceptives. It is not just birth control.

So true. Two of my sisters as well as a woman I met and "spent time with" in college (sorry to report that she was an FSU student) were all prescribed hormone medications that were also "birth control pills" for unrelated medical purposes.

None were wonton women as a result.

[Can I inject a "dammit" with regard to my Tallahassee Lassie?]

Most certainly a greater percentage of prescriptions for "The Pill" are related to birth control but that is not 100% of the time. Is it that the recipient prove the negative?

To belabor the obvious, my understanding is that "Little Blue Pills" are covered in most health plans, consequences be damned. The longer term palliative "upside" between the two is all too clear.

What is good for the Gander is not necessarily good for the Goose.

Natural turf or artificial. Take a stand. Plant, cut/pivot and continue on.

The "Game" is played regardless. Make conditions as safe and equitable as possible.

 

[dshans]

Who is dshans?

If you didn't know before, I'm a real Dick – from day one.

 

[connor_in]

If you didn't know before, I'm a real Dick – from day one.

a riff on your Ayn Rand..."Who is John Galt?"

 

[woolybug25]

Make colleges pick up the tab for bankrupted student loans they issued. Why shouldn't they co-sign on the future success of these kids instead of making it the only debt that can't be shaken in bankruptcy? Problem solved almost overnight.

As of CC students, most max out student loans to pay for a couple hundred dollars of books and fees. Then cash the check for the remaining amount and buy all kinds of stuff. It is criminal the feds/colleges make it so freaking easy. Credit Card companies at least have to eat the bad debt bill when BK is claimed and their immoral acts come home to roost.

Should we make companies pay employees that don't work out until they find a new gig? Should banks be forced to letting people slide on their mortgage until they find new work?

Unless someone is a "career scholar" (in which case, they definitely shouldn't get a break on debt), people go to four year universities to get job training. The universities shouldn't be responsible for whether or not people take advantage of their opportunities. That also wouldn't do jack in making universities compete better globally. Say good bye to research universities and/or any major without high placement rates. It would be a surefire way to stifle any educational advancements in higher ed. Certainly not a way to lessen the costs of higher education. You essentially make them a bank, as every student would be a credit decision. A credit decision where poor kids certainly are higher risk than rich kids. So essentially... making every current issue with higher education that much worse.

To your second point, I don't believe that community colleges have such high rates of failure simply because their students run out of money. They run out of money because they chose a path that either wasn't a good choice for their interest/skill sets or they didn't have a plan whatsoever. The immoral act isn't coming from the universities trying to provide a service, it comes from the irresponsibility of parents, students and our high schools that force feed this path to them. Telling them along the way that they are failing if they dont go to college. Regardless if they know for what reason or what area of study.

So until we address true career planning in high schools; we will continue to force kids that wont end up making it through college, don't want to go into a field requiring college or kids without any idea of what they are good at into making this same terrible financial decision.

 

[wizards8507]

People go to four year universities to get job training.

False. People SHOULD go to four year universities to get job training. People DO go to four year universities to "find themselves" and "become well-rounded people" and "pursue their passions" and other hippie bullshit (though I agree with what you're ultimately getting at in the rest of your post).

So until we address true career planning in high schools; we will continue to force kids that wont end up making it through college, don't want to go into a field requiring college or kids without any idea of what they are good at into making this same terrible financial decision.

Profoundly Disconnected

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Should we make companies pay employees that don't work out until they find a new gig? Should banks be forced to letting people slide on their mortgage until they find new work?

Unless someone is a "career scholar" (in which case, they definitely shouldn't get a break on debt), people go to four year universities to get job training. The universities shouldn't be responsible for whether or not people take advantage of their opportunities. That also wouldn't do jack in making universities compete better globally. Say good bye to research universities and/or any major without high placement rates. It would be a surefire way to stifle any educational advancements in higher ed. Certainly not a way to lessen the costs of higher education. You essentially make them a bank, as every student would be a credit decision. A credit decision where poor kids certainly are higher risk than rich kids. So essentially... making every current issue with higher education that much worse.

To your second point, I don't believe that community colleges have such high rates of failure simply because their students run out of money. They run out of money because they chose a path that either wasn't a good choice for their interest/skill sets or they didn't have a plan whatsoever. The immoral act isn't coming from the universities trying to provide a service, it comes from the irresponsibility of parents, students and our high schools that force feed this path to them. Telling them along the way that they are failing if they dont go to college. Regardless if they know for what reason or what area of study.

So until we address true career planning in high schools; we will continue to force kids that wont end up making it through college, don't want to go into a field requiring college or kids without any idea of what they are good at into making this same terrible financial decision.

I agree with this and I can't tell if it's because:

a. I carry a complex from my difficulties in school

or

b. because I wish I would've skipped the college-route to begin with.

I believe it's a little of both. I found it difficult as a young man to be headstrong enough to go a different way so I fell into the same path as most. I believe a few years of technical training would've provided me with far more outlet and growth coming out of high school. I was ill-equipped and disinterested in the actual work of college.

Had I gone to a community college in trade training, I could've done 10 years for the same price. I'd have been a hell of a worker if I'd taken machining/carpentry/electrical/welding over 10 years, all while interning with various businesses while I completed each two year program. It almost makes me sick how much I paid to be disillusioned and disinterested. I simply grew tired of regurgitating stuff and didn't have the work ethic to force it.

Having bagged on academia enough, I will say that I learned "how to learn" while in college. I don't know if that would've developed on it's own more quickly in the trades. The trades force you to produce tangible products that give a concreteness to the learning. College gives you cerebral satisfaction but I've rarely found it to be the same. The level of abstraction can be fun but sometimes it can alienate you from the practical. There were moments where concepts or understanding truly gave me a great satisfaction but they were few and far between.

College gave me some gifts that I'll carry with me but I certainly don't think it's the right step for every kid coming out.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

You aren't seriously arguing that are you? I have a friend who can give me plenty of ammo to disprove that assertion. There are issues that can be "treated" with contraceptives but there are more specific "treatments" that can be used for any one of those issues.

And since I know so many people believe the pill is a great product of the modern scientific experiment:

Oral Contraceptive pill use is associated with localized decreases in cortical thickness

We've grown up in a world where we say blessed is the barren womb and then drug our wives and daughters, changing their brain physiology and therefore their life patterns.

scientia vincere femina

Take everything he says with a grain of salt...anything to advance the myth of "GOP hates women and minorities" and "the left cares and is here to help you."

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Did you read the whole article? He wants to pay for it by raising taxes not by increasing the debt.

We're operating now on deficits. We're $18 trillion in debt. There are dozens more arguments I could make against "free college."

Finances aside, show me where in the Constitution the federal government is granted power in education and I'll ship you a case of your favorite IPA.

 

[phgreek]

It's not that simple. Turnout matters. I'm not suggesting that the Democrat base are going to turn into Ted Cruz supporters, but she's not an exciting candidate. It's going to be difficult for her to reassemble the Obama coalition.
.

Maybe so, but she may not need it as comprised previously...we'll know better closer to election. I just really think anyone who could vote Democrat in 2012 will have no problem doing so in 2016. And the get out the vote campaigns, and the efficiency of absentee balloting is improving. They may not have to "turnout" to get a vote in.

 

[ACamp1900]

Maybe so, but she may not need it as comprised previously...we'll know better closer to election. I just really think anyone who could vote Democrat in 2012 will have no problem doing so in 2016. And the get out the vote campaigns, and the efficiency of absentee balloting is improving. They may not have to "turnout" to get a vote in.

And they may be able to turnout in multiple districts at multiple times... Technology son.

 

[GoIrish41]

You aren't seriously arguing that are you? I have a friend who can give me plenty of ammo to disprove that assertion. There are issues that can be "treated" with contraceptives but there are more specific "treatments" that can be used for any one of those issues.

And since I know so many people believe the pill is a great product of the modern scientific experiment:

Oral Contraceptive pill use is associated with localized decreases in cortical thickness

We've grown up in a world where we say blessed is the barren womb and then drug our wives and daughters, changing their brain physiology and therefore their life patterns.

scientia vincere femina

The pill is prescribed by virtually every doctor that treats women for a variety of reasons -- from treatin acne in young girls, to regulating menstrual cycles, to prevention of cervical cancer, to easing discomfort of periods in women. Not every woman who takes the pill does so for birth control. In fact, not every woman who is on the pill is sexually active. Google "uses for contraceptives other than birth control" and you will find dozens of reports on the topic. Or you could just listen to your friend. Nobody is arguing that there are not other treatments but only that contraceptives are regularly prescribed for reasons other than birth control. Those decisions should be made by the woman on the advice of her doctor. You are not arguing that the government should butt in are you? I am amused at the idea that there are people who think that the only reason women take the pill is so they can whore it up without consequence. Not shocked that opinion is almost exclusively on the right. Do not be surprised when they do not sit in the Oval Office anytime soon because issues like this make it easy to conclude they are not listening to women ... Even the ones in their own party.

 

[dshans]

a riff on your Ayn Rand..."Who is John Galt?"

Life can be, and all too often is, a bitch.

Pick your measure.

 

[connor_in]

And they may be able to turnout in multiple districts at multiple times... Technology son.

And being Democrats it doesn't matter if they are living or dead

 

[connor_in]

Life can be, and all too often is, a bitch.

Pick your measure.