2016 Presidential Horse Race

[goldandblue]

I think what really hurt Romney was that women voted in favor of Obama 55/44. If Republicans can't change that number they will be in big trouble again.

It won't happen this year with the "Iron Vag" running on the democratic side.

 

[woolybug25]

nvm. Misread.

 

[Wild Bill]

.

 

[NDgradstudent]

The only thing people hate more than a loser, is a sore loser. You lost the election. Get over it.

I am not a sore loser. I am pointing out what actually happened in that election. The "unity" you speak of was not on display, as far as I can tell. This just proves my point that politics is about division and clashing interests. The Obama campaign did a good job of making that clear, and I am not denouncing them for doing so.

Finally, the only difference between you and that racist loser who shot up the church in S.C. is that you haven't shot anyone. You are just as full of shit and backwards as he is, and you have demonstrated to me that you have hate in your heart. I personally think you are a troll, because I cannot imagine anyone actually believing the despicable shit that you post on IE.

The term “racist” is thrown around so casually today that it is devoid of all meaning. I understand the term to mean someone who believes the people are worth less than other people before God or nature (and by implication the law) by virtue of their race. I of course reject this view, because it is obviously untrue. I will avoid giving examples of the work I have done in black/Hispanic communities, because I do not feel that I should have to immunize myself against these charges, but I will mention that I have done such work and will not be lectured in this way.

I do not consider observations about voting patterns, social policies, crime, etc., to be “racist,” provided that they are supported by evidence. But then again, serious scholars such as Charles Murray or Jason Richwine are denounced as “racists” for making similar points. It comes with the territory today.

As for immigration, in my view Americans have an obligation to think about how it affects our politics. We assume that as a matter of civic responsibility we ought to take an interest in who is elected to our legislative and executive offices. We take this interest because we are supposed to vote for people who, we think, will vote for policies that will help the country. The reason I generally vote Republican is that I believe that GOP policies are better for the country than Democratic policies. Since we live in a democratic republic, the people are ultimately sovereign and play a large role in deciding who wins elections. Therefore, the character of the demos –especially which policies it is likely to support– is of legitimate interest to current Americans, just as the character of our Congress or state legislature, President or Governor, etc., is of legitimate interest.

Here is a valuable chart about how groups voted in 2012, which lends support to my original argument.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'd trade NDgrad's presence on this site for 100 koonjas.

 

[mgriff]

The GOP needs to stop marginalizing the Libertarian section of the party. There are many who are fiscally conservative but very liberal socially. I don't foresee the GOP doing well until they open up their platform to become more inclusive and not so hardline on many issues. Dems have numbers at this point, so they don't really need a change as much as the GOP, IMO. But this has been said many times before and the back and forth has continued, so I could be off as many have been before me. I really dislike both parties and am sick of the corporate duopoly.

 

[ACamp1900]

The smart move would be to leave the old guard in the dust and embrace the libertarians totally... Where are the hard right wingers going to to go?? They won't lose them.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

The only thing people hate more than a loser, is a sore loser. You lost the election. Get over it. Maybe the Republican party should, as DillonHall pointed out, adapt to the changing demographics of the nation instead of trying to engineer the electorate in an attempt to hold on to the last bastian of 18th Century ideals that looks out for the normal Americans to protect them from all of those inferior, oddly colored people who are out to wreck the country.

I find a lot of Republican policies objectionable, but I find your particular brand of grotesque, bigoted, mean-spirited rhetoric to be particularly vulgar and lacking in humanity.

People are not moving away from the Republican party because they hate successful people, they are moving away because the only argument you can think of for the great political migration is to suggest something so unsofisticated and comically immature. People crave equality, fairness and a shot at the American Dream, not a rigged game in which the rich continue to get richer on the backs of the rapidly shrinking middle class and the rapidly growing poor. They don't resent the rich, they despise the indifference that they have for other human beings -- indifference that makes their lives worse every single day.

The policies that your party advocates for are relics of the past. Your economic policies have been proven ineffective over the past decades. Your stance on social justice and equality is mean-spirited and lacking in nuance. Your ignorance of science is a laughable tip of the hat to billionaires who want to keep destroying the planet for personal gain. And, more on topic, your disturbing views about diversity are making people run away from your party in droves.

Politics is not about disagreement and conflict, it is about compromise (which your party seems to have abandoned since the black guy became president) and getting things done to make the country a better place for everyone. But you keep thinking it is about the fight and not about results, I will look forward to some ignorant racially motivated tirade come 2016 when your party goes down in flames again because they lack the ability to recognize that the world has changed around them.

Finally, the only difference between you and that racist loser who shot up the church in S.C. is that you haven't shot anyone. You are just as full of shit and backwards as he is, and you have demonstrated to me that you have hate in your heart. I personally think you are a troll, because I cannot imagine anyone actually believing the despicable shit that you post on IE.

This coming from the poster who a month or two ago advocated limiting free speech that could be categorized (by him) as "hateful" or "offensive." Outstanding.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The GOP needs to stop marginalizing the Libertarian section of the party. There are many who are fiscally conservative but very liberal socially. I don't foresee the GOP doing well until they open up their platform to become more inclusive and not so hardline on many issues. Dems have numbers at this point, so they don't really need a change as much as the GOP, IMO. But this has been said many times before and the back and forth has continued, so I could be off as many have been before me. I really dislike both parties and am sick of the corporate duopoly.

The smart move would be to leave the old guard in the dust and embrace the libertarians totally... Where are the hard right wingers going to to go?? They won't lose them.

The libertarian surge in the last few years is great and all but in my opinion is really just conservative's frustration with corporatism showing up. I really think it's unsustainable as a national political model. Truthfully I think it's a cousin of communism in that it sounds great on paper but would be an absolute clusterfuck in real life.

I also can't imagine the GOP funders (read: Koch Brothers and Co.) embracing libertarianism and having that work well in a national election. Who wants to be a part of this world?

Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980:

“We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
“We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
“We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
“We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
“We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
“We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
“As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
“We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
“We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
“We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
“We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
“We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
“We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
“We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
“We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
“We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
“We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
“We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
“We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
“We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
“We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
“We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
“We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
“We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”

 

[Cackalacky]

The libertarian surge in the last few years is great and all but in my opinion is really just conservative's frustration with corporatism showing up. I really think it's unsustainable as a national political model. Truthfully I think it's a cousin of communism in that it sounds great on paper but would be an absolute clusterfuck in real life.

I also can't imagine the GOP funders (read: Koch Brothers and Co.) embracing libertarianism and having that work well in a national election. Who wants to be a part of this world?

 

[Cackalacky]

The smart move would be to leave the old guard in the dust and embrace the libertarians totally... Where are the hard right wingers going to to go?? They won't lose them.

While I agree it's in the Republicans best interest longterm to end their relations with the southern strategy demo graphic and their cronyism/corporatism...I am not sure what platform they could assimilate. Discussing this with Whiskeyjack at length (thank you good sir) I don't think libertarianism is 1) a coherent ideology at this time and 2) aligned with the current establishment. I would need to see a huge swing in policy over several blocs of people or libertarians hone their message better.

The tea party is an interesting historical blip in politics kind of like the Dixiecrats.... A product of their environment with a tendency to be .....well.....belligerent? That's a bad word....uhm...#reckless maybe?

 

[Cackalacky]

The libertarians need to get the south jacked up on Pixiegrits.


Ima see myself out.

 

[potownhero]

While I agree it's in the Republicans best interest longterm to end their relations with the southern strategy demo graphic and their cronyism/corporatism...I am not sure what platform they could assimilate. Discussing this with Whiskeyjack at length (thank you good sir) I don't think libertarianism is 1) a coherent ideology at this time and 2) aligned with the current establishment. I would need to see a huge swing in policy over several blocs of people or libertarians hone their message better.

The tea party is an interesting historical blip in politics kind of like the Dixiecrats.... A product of their environment with a tendency to be .....well.....belligerent? That's a bad word....uhm...#reckless maybe?

You're way off if you think the Tea Partiers are belligerent...principled I thing would be a better descriptor...whether you agree with them or not.

Also saw a few things from back in the thread a bit.

Many new immigrants from the Indian community and the Asian Community that have embraced the GOP and the R Party seems to have embraced them just fine. Skin color doesn't seem to matter, does it?

Finally, from my perspective, I see the D Party as a party that panders to each of the groups of people mentioned earlier - suggesting that one group deserves something special therefore creating division within society. Politically that might be good short term, but long term identity politics will be bad for the country in my opinion. Thoughts?

 

[pkt77242]

You're way off if you think the Tea Partiers are belligerent...principled I thing would be a better descriptor...whether you agree with them or not.

Also saw a few things from back in the thread a bit.

Many new immigrants from the Indian community and the Asian Community that have embraced the GOP and the R Party seems to have embraced them just fine. Skin color doesn't seem to matter, does it?

Finally, from my perspective, I see the D Party as a party that panders to each of the groups of people mentioned earlier - suggesting that one group deserves something special therefore creating division within society. Politically that might be good short term, but long term identity politics will be bad for the country in my opinion. Thoughts?

I think you are partially wrong. Both parties do it. Do you not think that Republicans pander to each of their groups? Big business, conservative Christians, the immigrant fearing crowd, etc. Both parties do it.

 

[pkt77242]

The GOP needs to stop marginalizing the Libertarian section of the party. There are many who are fiscally conservative but very liberal socially. I don't foresee the GOP doing well until they open up their platform to become more inclusive and not so hardline on many issues. Dems have numbers at this point, so they don't really need a change as much as the GOP, IMO. But this has been said many times before and the back and forth has continued, so I could be off as many have been before me. I really dislike both parties and am sick of the corporate duopoly.

I think that getting rid of parties altogether would be amazing to me. Politicians should be responsible to the people who elect them, not to their party.

 

[potownhero]

I think you are partially wrong. Both parties do it. Do you not think that Republicans pander to each of their groups? Big business, conservative Christians, the immigrant fearing crowd, etc. Both parties do it.

Good points. I agree that R's pander to the Conservative Christians and those that are against Illegal Immigration. That said, both parties pander to big business.

Follow up thought/question, do people get offended when a politician panders to the Christians? (I don't care personally, but just might be insensitive to it).

Also, would you consider the R pandering to be as divisive? Are they pitting groups against each other?

 

[DomeX2 eNVy]

I'm surprised to see Walker call for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as 1 man + 1 woman. I think this will make it extremely difficult for him if he gets to the general election - though it may help him get there.

 

[EddytoNow]

You're way off if you think the Tea Partiers are belligerent...principled I thing would be a better descriptor...whether you agree with them or not.

Also saw a few things from back in the thread a bit.

Many new immigrants from the Indian community and the Asian Community that have embraced the GOP and the R Party seems to have embraced them just fine. Skin color doesn't seem to matter, does it?

Finally, from my perspective, I see the D Party as a party that panders to each of the groups of people mentioned earlier - suggesting that one group deserves something special therefore creating division within society. Politically that might be good short term, but long term identity politics will be bad for the country in my opinion. Thoughts?

Actually, the Asian vote was nearly identical to that of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election. See a summary below:

White Vote - 59% Republican, 39% Democrat
Black Vote - 6% Republican, 93% Democrat
Hispanic Vote - 27% Republican, 71% Democrat
Asian Vote - 26% Republican, 73% Democrat

I will believe that Asian Americans are flocking to the Republican party when I see a substantial number of Asian faces among the delegates to the Republican Convention. It would be interesting to see some statistics to back up your argument that Asians and Indians are choosing the Republican party.

 

[Black Irish]

I think you are partially wrong. Both parties do it. Do you not think that Republicans pander to each of their groups? Big business, conservative Christians, the immigrant fearing crowd, etc. Both parties do it.

It's amusing that people on the left assume that it's strictly Republicans who cozy up to big business interests. Where the hell do you think the Democrats get all their campaign cash from? It isn't all crinkled up five spots from hard-working blue collar folks being mailed to the DNC. The Dems get plenty from big business and Wall Street, not to mention unions and the trial lawyers associations. It's fat cats versus fat cats, the Dems just do a better job pretending that they care about the average joe.

 

[pkt77242]

It's amusing that people on the left assume that it's strictly Republicans who cozy up to big business interests. Where the hell do you think the Democrats get all their campaign cash from? It isn't all crinkled up five spots from hard-working blue collar folks being mailed to the DNC. The Dems get plenty from big business and Wall Street, not to mention unions and the trial lawyers associations. It's fat cats versus fat cats, the Dems just do a better job pretending that they care about the average joe.

Did I ever say that Dems didn't cozy up to big business? Oddly I don't see that anywhere in my post. I think the conservatives might be a tad sensitive to this topic, geez.

 

[Black Irish]

Did I ever say that Dems didn't cozy up to big business? Oddly I don't see that anywhere in my post. I think the conservatives might be a tad sensitive to this topic, geez.

What you did say was that Republicans "pander to each of their groups" in reference to big business, and it certainly was not in a complimentary fashion. It seemed pretty clear that you were assigning big business as an interest group of the GOP. If that's not what you meant, don't accuse me of being sensitive, try being more careful with your words.

 

[EddytoNow]

Good points. I agree that R's pander to the Conservative Christians and those that are against Illegal Immigration. That said, both parties pander to big business.

Follow up thought/question, do people get offended when a politician panders to the Christians? (I don't care personally, but just might be insensitive to it).

Also, would you consider the R pandering to be as divisive? Are they pitting groups against each other?

Pandering to the Christians would include legislation incorporating Christian doctrine, such as Walker's proposed constitutional amendment definiing marriage as between one man and one woman. I would think atheists and practitioners of other faiths might be offended by Chrisitan doctrine becoming US law. I would also assume a large percentage of the US population would be offended by Walker's attempt to define marriage in Christian terms.

So the answer is "Yes". Republican pandering is very divisive. In fact, I would argue it is more divisive than Democratic pandering. It is one of the primary reasons that the Republicans get very little support from Blacks, Hispanics, non-Christians, the poor, the working class, etc. Much of the Republican rhetoric is divisive. It can be summed up in the following: (Choose one) Blacks, Gays, Women, Hispanics, Muslims, the poor, the working class, etc. are coming to take what rightfully belongs to you.

 

[woolybug25]

What you did say was that Republicans "pander to each of their groups" in reference to big business, and it certainly was not in a complimentary fashion. It seemed pretty clear that you were assigning big business as an interest group of the GOP. If that's not what you meant, don't accuse me of being sensitive, try being more careful with your words.

Nowhere did he make mention of only one side pandering. You made that assumption all on your own. Don't attack pkt for your misunderstanding of his post. You are the only one that read it as one side being fully responsible for all pandering. That's a point I don't think he needed to point out with his comment. He doesn't need to choose his words better, but you should seek clarification before shooting off knee jerk attacks on another poster while accusing them of choosing their words poorly. When in fact, his words were chosen just fine for everyone else.

 

[Black Irish]

Nowhere did he make mention of only one side pandering. You made that assumption all on your own. Don't attack pkt for your misunderstanding of his post. You are the only one that read it as one side being fully responsible for all pandering. That's a point I don't think he needed to point out with his comment. He doesn't need to choose his words better, but you should seek clarification before shooting off knee jerk attacks on another poster while accusing them of choosing their words poorly. When in fact, his words were chosen just fine for everyone else.

Did you read my post that you quoted? I am not quibbling with pkt's assertion that both sides pander. My issue is with him assigning big business pandering to the conservative side. I quoted his post where pkt said that big business was one of "their" (i.e. the conservatives) groups. It is very clear what he said based on the words he used and that is what I am talking about. There is no misunderstanding. Let's not play this "don't argue against what I wrote because that's not what I meant " game. I am working with what was written and what I read was pretty straight-forward. If pkt wants to amend his point after the fact to clarify things, that's fair. But don't try to twist the original statement to mean something that it clearly doesn't.

 

[woolybug25]

Did you read my post that you quoted? I am not quibbling with pkt's assertion that both sides pander. My issue is with him assigning big business pandering to the conservative side. I quoted his post where pkt said that big business was one of "their" (i.e. the conservatives) groups. It is very clear what he said based on the words he used and that is what I am talking about. There is no misunderstanding. Let's not play this "don't argue against what I wrote because that's not what I meant " game. I am working with what was written and what I read was pretty straight-forward. If pkt wants to amend his point after the fact to clarify things, that's fair. But don't try to twist the original statement to mean something that it clearly doesn't.

I reread the original comments and I stand by my comment. Pkt simply said that "republicans pander to their groups". Never did he say that they (big business in particular) were exclusive to the Republican party. He just said it was one of the groups they pander to. You were the one that made that assumption, he simply never said that. So I still don't get how you can hold another poster accountable for your misunderstanding of his post?

 

[wizards8507]

Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

 

[Black Irish]

I reread the original comments and I stand by my comment. Pkt simply said that "republicans pander to their groups". Never did he say that they (big business in particular) were exclusive to the Republican party. He just said it was one of the groups they pander to. You were the one that made that assumption, he simply never said that. So I still don't get how you can hold another poster accountable for your misunderstanding of his post?

Pkt made a very direct assertion and I called BS. It's after the fact that pkt, and now you, are telling me that his words somehow don't mean what they clearly do. What pkt said was "Do you not think that Republicans pander to each of their groups." Then he followed that statement up with a list of groups. It's easy to follow his logic. Big business = a GOP interest group, along with conservative Christians and the "immigrant fearing crowd." I'm not splitting hairs, misunderstanding, or misrepresenting anything. It's really that simple. Your logic is much more complicated. I'm supposed to believe that pkt made a statement about the GOP and "their groups" and followed that statement up with a list of random interest groups that could really be associated with either party? So conservative Christians and the immigrant fearing crowd are just as much an interest group of Democrats as they are to Republicans? Okay, sure.

 

[phgreek]

Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

Right on point...

The challenge of our time is not a do-nothing congress, but rather over-reaching Executive and Judicial.

An activist Supreme Court is an unchecked entity, and it must cease to be such. It must remain supreme in interpretation, but must not be allowed the leeway it currently enjoys...leeway to "Create" rights that are not evident in the constitution. This activity has no check...

 

[woolybug25]

Pkt made a very direct assertion and I called BS. It's after the fact that pkt, and now you, are telling me that his words somehow don't mean what they clearly do. What pkt said was "Do you not think that Republicans pander to each of their groups." Then he followed that statement up with a list of groups. It's easy to follow his logic. Big business = a GOP interest group, along with conservative Christians and the "immigrant fearing crowd." I'm not splitting hairs, misunderstanding, or misrepresenting anything. It's really that simple. Your logic is much more complicated. I'm supposed to believe that pkt made a statement about the GOP and "their groups" and followed that statement up with a list of random interest groups that could really be associated with either party? So conservative Christians and the immigrant fearing crowd are just as much an interest group of Democrats as they are to Republicans? Okay, sure.

I really don't understand why you are having such a hard time with the comprehension here.

He said they "pander to their groups". By using "their" he was referring to them pandering to the groups in which they desire preference from. Not that they are the only group that is capable of pandering to them. PKT reiterated this point, but you still didn't get it and now i'm trying to explain it and you still don't get it.

He never said that one group has exclusive pandering by one party. You are interpreting that comment out of a misunderstanding, which now two people have pointed out. You can continue to argue that you somehow magically know a secret intent of PKT's, but he simply didn't say VERBATIM what you are accusing. Get over it.

 

[pkt77242]

Pkt made a very direct assertion and I called BS. It's after the fact that pkt, and now you, are telling me that his words somehow don't mean what they clearly do. What pkt said was "Do you not think that Republicans pander to each of their groups." Then he followed that statement up with a list of groups. It's easy to follow his logic. Big business = a GOP interest group, along with conservative Christians and the "immigrant fearing crowd." I'm not splitting hairs, misunderstanding, or misrepresenting anything. It's really that simple. Your logic is much more complicated. I'm supposed to believe that pkt made a statement about the GOP and "their groups" and followed that statement up with a list of random interest groups that could really be associated with either party? So conservative Christians and the immigrant fearing crowd are just as much an interest group of Democrats as they are to Republicans? Okay, sure.

Wooly is doing a great job of pointing out what I posted, and now on vacation I feel that I need to respond. Big business is one of their (Republicans) groups that they pander too. That is what I posted. I never commented on whether Democrats pander to them or not. My post was in response to Potwon listing groups that Democrats pandered too and I merely pointed out that Republicans do as well and some of the groups that they pander too. You are "seeing" things in my post that are not there. Sorry.

Now if you want to ask me if I think that Democrats pander to big business, then I will gladly answer that question.