2016 Presidential Horse Race

2016 Presidential Horse Race


  • Total voters
    183

ShawneeIrish

Well-known member
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
137
...that makes me feel better about people. We'll see what happens...will those people who went to Sanders still pull the lever for Hills if she wins the nomination...

I will not. For me its Bernie or a third party candidate. I realize a third party candidate will not garner any support but I do not view it as throwing my vote away because I live in KY which like about 40 other states will not be competitive and also because I view voting for a corporate, imperialist Dem like Hillary a much greater waste of my vote.

This article summed it up well:

"Both Clinton and Biden have been leaders of the crony network of Democratic Party enablers who have colluded with the GOP on the domestic policies that have relentlessly eroded economic security and opportunity for the vast majority of our people. They both are also major promoters of the reckless foreign interventions that have cost thousands of American lives, trillions of dollars and generated fierce hatred of us throughout the world.

"Not our fault," shrug the Democratic elite. "The country has moved to the right." True. Yet these same people have controlled the White House for 15 of the last 23 years. The problem is not that the Republican Party has moved to the right; that has always been its natural tendency. It's that the Democratic Party has willingly moved with them. "

Bernie Sanders: A Moment of Truth for DemocratsMichigan|MichiganJeff Faux
 

Grahambo

Varsity Club Member
Messages
4,259
Reaction score
2,606
I am not a Clinton supporter and I am with you on her shady character. So if R's are going to do something productive with her apparent untrustworthiness (you are far more convinced of her obvious "guilt" than I) and nominate a sound and reasonable candidate -- not a GOP 4 of Trump, Carson, Cruz, and Fiorina (who was fired for good reason) and her highly questionable business record. If you guys hate Hillary so much, pick a candidate who might actually beat her with ideas that people actually can get behind. The R's want to beat on progressives about Hillary but are too stubborn to seize the opportunity to beat her. It is a humorous thing to watch people get so spun up about it and then support nut jobs and incompetents as the alternative.

Curious your thoughts on Rubio. And no, not a setup question or a got ya question. ha Just an honest thought.
 

ShawneeIrish

Well-known member
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
137
Curious your thoughts on Rubio. And no, not a setup question or a got ya question. ha Just an honest thought.

I know this was not addressed to me, but if I was a Republican who wanted to win this election all my focus would be on Rubio and Kasich. Two of the more mainstream Republicans in the field and both are from important states. I find Kasich to be more reasonable (however that my opinion not necessarily how it would play to an electorate) but Rubio has the advantage of youth. I don't see Bush as having a lot of hope and the fringe of Fiorina, Trump, Carson, and for that matter Cruz could never win a general election.
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,947
Reaction score
11,225
I've been saying that about Kasich and Rubio for a couple months now...
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,979
I know this was not addressed to me, but if I was a Republican who wanted to win this election all my focus would be on Rubio and Kasich. Two of the more mainstream Republicans in the field and both are from important states. I find Kasich to be more reasonable (however that my opinion not necessarily how it would play to an electorate) but Rubio has the advantage of youth. I don't see Bush as having a lot of hope and the fringe of Fiorina, Trump, Carson, and for that matter Cruz could never win a general election.

Never say never. The idea of Ahhhhnold governing Cali four knee seemed like a joke when he announced. Lol.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
I am not a Clinton supporter and I am with you on her shady character. So if R's are going to do something productive with her apparent untrustworthiness (you are far more convinced of her obvious "guilt" than I) and nominate a sound and reasonable candidate -- not a GOP 4 of Trump, Carson, Cruz, and Fiorina (who was fired for good reason) and her highly questionable business record. If you guys hate Hillary so much, pick a candidate who might actually beat her with ideas that people actually can get behind. The R's want to beat on progressives about Hillary but are too stubborn to seize the opportunity to beat her. It is a humorous thing to watch people get so spun up about it and then support nut jobs and incompetents as the alternative.

Again Fiorina's firing can not be seen in a vacuum, or a Donald Bumper sticker characterization. I don't know what your source of such definitive information is, but it isn't clear to me that her termination was as simple as job performance. Overly simplistic views of the competition's weaknesses tend to rule the day in politics, and I understand that. Maybe that situation becomes a hurdle she can't clear, and her explanation is not good enough...however she indeed posses charisma, character, and executive leadership...

I'm more on the Kasich, Jeb train...while I like Rubio, I am uneasy with his lack of experience in an executive role...which is my personal litmus test.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Sounds like Walker is out...

...not the one that needed to leave...He is the most battle tested, and would have made some nice contributions to the debates when there weren't 11 people on stage, and someone could ask a question that didn't invoke a Donald fight...I wish he could have hung on.
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
Scott Walker drops out of 2016 race - CNNPolitics.com



I encourage other Republican presidential candidates to consider doing the same so that the voters can focus on a limited number of candidates who can offer a positive, conservative alternative to the current front-runner," said Walker, referencing businessman Donald Trump. "This is fundamentally important to the future of our party, and, more important, the future of the country.
 
Last edited:
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
I'm kind of stunned that Walker is out. I'm glad, he was a tool, but I really thought he'd have had the donor daddies money to continue.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
Curious your thoughts on Rubio. And no, not a setup question or a got ya question. ha Just an honest thought.

I think Rubio and Kasich are both reasonable and politically savvy candidates. Rubio is a smart guy but comes off as a little too political at times with kinda stark shifts in political philosophy depending his reading of the political tea leaves. That and while his youth may be an advantage, it might also be a curse in his case because he looks like he's 12. That said, he usually comes off as impressive and I think he carried the last debate on substance. Shawnee's take above is right where I am at on the R candidates. Jeb would round out my top 3 on reasonableness and electability.
 
Last edited:

alohagoirish

New member
Messages
269
Reaction score
63
Walker had enough money , he got out because he didn't want his political career totally trashed by the humiliation of getting kicked off the stage in that next debate. No room in the next debate for the 1%/2% group. Likely down to 8.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
Again Fiorina's firing can not be seen in a vacuum, or a Donald Bumper sticker characterization. I don't know what your source of such definitive information is, but it isn't clear to me that her termination was as simple as job performance. Overly simplistic views of the competition's weaknesses tend to rule the day in politics, and I understand that. Maybe that situation becomes a hurdle she can't clear, and her explanation is not good enough...however she indeed posses charisma, character, and executive leadership...

I'm more on the Kasich, Jeb train...while I like Rubio, I am uneasy with his lack of experience in an executive role...which is my personal litmus test.

It will be difficult for her to overcome getting fired from her hat hanger position. She'll be forced over and again to explain it and will eventually sound defensive and then suspicious to people. The scrutiny these candidates must endure is astonishing and most do not hold up well to it. Her starting point is in a deep credibility hole. She may appeal to Rs some, but the lights just get hotter in the general election, and her policy proposals will be a nonstarter for liberal voters and most middle of the roaders, too. No matter the reason for her firing, the optics of that are horrible. She exudes confidence and stays on message, though. I'll give you that much.
 

ShawneeIrish

Well-known member
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
137
Never say never. The idea of Ahhhhnold governing Cali four knee seemed like a joke when he announced. Lol.

True. Same with Jesse Ventura as a governor. However, I dont see that kind of thing is as likely on a national stage. I really don't think there is any circumstance that could lead to a Trump presidency but I may have been a little too hasty in disregarding ANY possibility of the other 3.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Again Fiorina's firing can not be seen in a vacuum, or a Donald Bumper sticker characterization. I don't know what your source of such definitive information is, but it isn't clear to me that her termination was as simple as job performance. Overly simplistic views of the competition's weaknesses tend to rule the day in politics, and I understand that. Maybe that situation becomes a hurdle she can't clear, and her explanation is not good enough...however she indeed posses charisma, character, and executive leadership...

I'm more on the Kasich, Jeb train...while I like Rubio, I am uneasy with his lack of experience in an executive role...which is my personal litmus test.

Re Fiorina Per CNN Money from Feb. 2005:
Carly Fiorina forced out at HP - Feb. 10, 2005
She was not fired for cause and received $21 million in severance but by all accounts, in a market on the cusp of a bubble she purchased Compaq and the shareholders did not get the returns expected. Also the SEC inquired about HPs being sold to Iran and also bribing foreign govt. officials. She did not get along with board, did not listen to the boards requests in addressing the plummeting stocks. In the end HP needed a hands on leader not a figurehead.

HP (Research) jumped 6.9 percent in heavy trading on the New York Stock Exchange Wednesday on the news. But at one point, the stock was up as much as 10.5 percent.
"The stock is up a bit on the fact that nobody liked Carly's leadership all that much," said Robert Cihra, an analyst with Fulcrum Global Partners. "The Street had lost all faith in her and the market's hope is that anyone will be better."
Fiorina, the only female CEO at a company in the Dow Jones industrial average, had been with HP since 1999. But the company's controversial deal to buy Compaq in the spring of 2002 -- after a bruising proxy fight led by one of the Hewlett family heirs -- has not produced the shareholder returns or profits she had promised.
"While I regret the board and I have differences about how to execute HP's strategy, I respect their decision," Fiorina said in a statement released by the company.
On a conference call with reporters, executives said Fiorina was not terminated for cause and that she would receive severance pay -- and a company spokesman said she'll get a payout of approximately $21 million, including stock options (see correction).
Fiorina told analysts in December that Hewlett Packard (Research) had seriously considered breaking up the company on three separate occasions but each time decided against it.
Some industry analysts had argued HP should either split off its lucrative printer and imaging business, or break HP into separate firms, with one focusing on consumers and the other on corporations.
But during a conference call Wednesday morning, HP CFO Robert Wayman, who was named interim CEO, suggested that no major changes in strategy would take place following Fiorina's departure.
"We continue to believe we have the right ingredients for success in the marketplace," Wayman said during the call with Wall Street analysts.
HP stock has been a laggard compared to the shares of rivals such as Dell (Research) and IBM (Research). Shares were trading at only about 13 times 2005 earnings estimates before the announcement, while shares of IBM and Dell traded at 17 times and 26 times forecasts for the current year.
"We continue to believe we have the right ingredients for success in the marketplace," Wayman said during the call with Wall Street analysts.
HP stock has been a laggard compared to the shares of rivals such as Dell (Research) and IBM (Research). Shares were trading at only about 13 times 2005 earnings estimates before the announcement, while shares of IBM and Dell traded at 17 times and 26 times forecasts for the current year.
And even after factoring HP's big move Wednesday, the stock was still trading at around the same price it was at when the company announced its merger with Compaq in September 2001.
The legendary Palo Alto, Calif.-based company has struggled to generate profits in the cutthroat hardware business, particularly in personal computers. In fact, slowing sales and stiff competition in the PC business led IBM to announce last year that it would sell its PC unit to China's Lenovo Group -- a deal that some lawmakers are eyeing for what they call national security concerns.
PCs aren't the only trouble spot for HP. In the market for servers -- the computers used to build corporate networks -- analysts say HP has been squeezed by IBM on the high end and Dell on the low end.]
 

pumpdog20

Well-known member
Messages
4,742
Reaction score
3,153
Depends on what alternative is available. Will it be the racist loud mouth who offers vague proclamations about how terrific he will fix things or the failed executive who misrepresents her business record or the inexperienced surgeon who makes crazy analogies? If so, be ready for President Hillary!

Why, because Hillary has shown to be better than those examples?
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
Funny I don't remember the media covering this like they have the Trump non response from the questioner.

Media Smears Trump, Ignores Fact That Hillary Clinton Started Birther Movement - Breitbart

Trump is smart enough to bring it back to Hillary - wouldn't be surprised to see him use this as an opportunity to rail against the mainstream media and their hypocrisy. You can tell he pays attention to things like this and wouldn't be surprised if his handlers have this exact article on his plate as we speak. He will phrase it so it comes from someone else too - "you should really try being a real journalist for a change, you know some people have pointed out, rightly so, that Hillary started this whole "birther" movement! Why don't you go ask her about it? Oh, that's right because that won't get you any ratings."
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Even with Sanders proposed tax increases it would barely cover 1/3 of the cost of his spending.

Bernie Sanders' $18 Trillion Spending Plan Shows Democrats Irresponsibility - US News

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/

The answer isn’t quite so dramatic: while Sanders does want to spend significant amounts of money, almost all of it is on things we’re already paying for; he just wants to change how we pay for them. In some ways it’s by spreading out a cost currently borne by a limited number of people to all taxpayers. His plan for free public college would do this: right now, it’s paid for by students and their families, while under Sanders’ plan we’d all pay for it in the same way we all pay for parks or the military or food safety.

But the bulk of what Sanders wants to do is in the first category: to have us pay through taxes for things we’re already paying for in other ways. Depending on your perspective on government, you may think that’s a bad idea. But we shouldn’t treat his proposals as though they’re going to cost us $18 trillion on top of what we’re already paying.

And there’s another problem with that scary $18 trillion figure, which is what the Journal says is the 10-year cost of Sanders’ ideas: fully $15 trillion of it comes not from an analysis of anything Sanders has proposed, but from the fact that Sanders has said he’d like to see a single-payer health insurance system, and there’s a single-payer plan in Congress that has been estimated to cost $15 trillion. Sanders hasn’t actually released any health care plan, so we have no idea what his might cost.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Trump is smart enough to bring it back to Hillary - wouldn't be surprised to see him use this as an opportunity to rail against the mainstream media and their hypocrisy. You can tell he pays attention to things like this and wouldn't be surprised if his handlers have this exact article on his plate as we speak. He will phrase it so it comes from someone else too - "you should really try being a real journalist for a change, you know some people have pointed out, rightly so, that Hillary started this whole "birther" movement! Why don't you go ask her about it? Oh, that's right because that won't get you any ratings."

I haven't been following this round of birther boloney, because it's dumb, but wouldn't a difference be that Trump is still birthering and Clinton isn't?
 

yankeehater

Well-known member
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
774
I haven't been following this round of birther boloney, because it's dumb, but wouldn't a difference be that Trump is still birthering and Clinton isn't?

The Donald did not bring up the birther issue someone at one of his rallies called Obama a Muslim.

Maybe Hillary isn't because she is no longer running against Obama.....and also that pardon she may need someday from the Prez.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Re Fiorina Per CNN Money from Feb. 2005:
Carly Fiorina forced out at HP - Feb. 10, 2005
She was not fired for cause and received $21 million in severance but by all accounts, in a market on the cusp of a bubble she purchased Compaq and the shareholders did not get the returns expected. Also the SEC inquired about HPs being sold to Iran and also bribing foreign govt. officials. She did not get along with board, did not listen to the boards requests in addressing the plummeting stocks. In the end HP needed a hands on leader not a figurehead.

The very board that supposedly determined her a poor executive, and terminated her was shortly after labeled as completely dysfunctional. The deal she brokered, and managed was considered one of the most seamless mergers ever. During that time she lost jobs because the point was not to transform, but rather gain efficiency, and combine markets and support staff. Given when she was doing this, that move made sense to me. When she did this merger, Technology companies were all getting crushed, however she actually maintained a business...it came in less profitable than she imagined, but it was profitable...not many technology companies could say that.

She was far from a cautionary tale...was she Steve Jobs, no. But she was good.

Further, the server sector often times offered as the place where HP should have spent its money did not hold the volume potential, and therefore expenditure there would have cost 2x as many jobs. It is true, she could have increased profit by that route...but she didn't go that route....maybe she was a Democrat back then.

Also, kinda related...I often see the growth in revenue that cam from the merger dismissed because profits went down...thats because the margins went down for PCs incredibly fast after 2000.

And Finally, the software sector also offered up from time to time as a place where HP should have spent money...it might be true, but I'm biased based on my own experiences. The support expectations of the time were far different, and the cost to support software on the desktop de jour back then was painful and costly...rather out of ignorance or savvy, HP dodged a bullet...IMHO.

I just don't see the part where she failed when you understand what she faced when she took over (HP already had issues), the things she actually did, and the fact she did fine retaining jobs when you consider what the hell happened to technology companies at the time...

As for Iran, I'm interested to hear more about that. I had heard some buzz recently and want to see what comes of it.
 

Andy in Sactown

Can't wait 'til gameday.
Messages
2,689
Reaction score
327
The very board that supposedly determined her a poor executive, and terminated her was shortly after labeled as completely dysfunctional. The deal she brokered, and managed was considered one of the most seamless mergers ever. During that time she lost jobs because the point was not to transform, but rather gain efficiency, and combine markets and support staff. Given when she was doing this, that move made sense to me. When she did this merger, Technology companies were all getting crushed, however she actually maintained a business...it came in less profitable than she imagined, but it was profitable...not many technology companies could say that.

She was far from a cautionary tale...was she Steve Jobs, no. But she was good.

Further, the server sector often times offered as the place where HP should have spent its money did not hold the volume potential, and therefore expenditure there would have cost 2x as many jobs. It is true, she could have increased profit by that route...but she didn't go that route....maybe she was a Democrat back then.

Also, kinda related...I often see the growth in revenue that cam from the merger dismissed because profits went down...thats because the margins went down for PCs incredibly fast after 2000.

And Finally, the software sector also offered up from time to time as a place where HP should have spent money...it might be true, but I'm biased based on my own experiences. The support expectations of the time were far different, and the cost to support software on the desktop de jour back then was painful and costly...rather out of ignorance or savvy, HP dodged a bullet...IMHO.

I just don't see the part where she failed when you understand what she faced when she took over (HP already had issues), the things she actually did, and the fact she did fine retaining jobs when you consider what the hell happened to technology companies at the time...

As for Iran, I'm interested to hear more about that. I had heard some buzz recently and want to see what comes of it.

I am by no means an expert on such things, but my perception at the time was that she made a terrible blunder in choosing to acquire Compaq. While streamlining of the PC business was always a priority of that deal, the economic ramifications of the merger lost more people their jobs than simple redundancy reductions.

Under her rule, albeit amongst a bubble-bust tech economy, she turned an entrenched member of our free market engineering community into a disjointed and dysfunctional mess. HP had printer and calculator segments dominated and had the highest marks in quality and was respected as an industry leader in the IT research fields.

Doing what's best for the shareholders in the short-term and basically dismantling what went from a garage start-up to an industry icon that put tools into the pockets of men and women that aspired to send Americans to the moon, etc. is never going to endear her to me.
 
Last edited:
C

Cackalacky

Guest
The very board that supposedly determined her a poor executive, and terminated her was shortly after labeled as completely dysfunctional. The deal she brokered, and managed was considered one of the most seamless mergers ever. During that time she lost jobs because the point was not to transform, but rather gain efficiency, and combine markets and support staff. Given when she was doing this, that move made sense to me. When she did this merger, Technology companies were all getting crushed, however she actually maintained a business...it came in less profitable than she imagined, but it was profitable...not many technology companies could say that.

She was far from a cautionary tale...was she Steve Jobs, no. But she was good.

Further, the server sector often times offered as the place where HP should have spent its money did not hold the volume potential, and therefore expenditure there would have cost 2x as many jobs. It is true, she could have increased profit by that route...but she didn't go that route....maybe she was a Democrat back then.

Also, kinda related...I often see the growth in revenue that cam from the merger dismissed because profits went down...thats because the margins went down for PCs incredibly fast after 2000.

And Finally, the software sector also offered up from time to time as a place where HP should have spent money...it might be true, but I'm biased based on my own experiences. The support expectations of the time were far different, and the cost to support software on the desktop de jour back then was painful and costly...rather out of ignorance or savvy, HP dodged a bullet...IMHO.

I just don't see the part where she failed when you understand what she faced when she took over (HP already had issues), the things she actually did, and the fact she did fine retaining jobs when you consider what the hell happened to technology companies at the time...

As for Iran, I'm interested to hear more about that. I had heard some buzz recently and want to see what comes of it.
Obviously you can believe what you want or introduce all the uncertainty you want into this matter. But, it is widely documented and perceived by business people and Wall Street that her run as CEO for HP was a significant failure. AndyinSacTown has some good points as well, HP has never really recovered from the bad deal that she committed to, which ultimately failed.

Also, if she was a such a great CEO that just had a dysfunctional board or got the raw deal of the tech bubble, she obviously should have landed another high position somewhere else as CEO right? No, she joined the board of a Tiawanese company for a few years, the board of a Virginia university for a few more then tried to get into politics losing her bid in California. I'll pass.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181

The answer isn’t quite so dramatic: while Sanders does want to spend significant amounts of money, almost all of it is on things we’re already paying for; he just wants to change how we pay for them. In some ways it’s by spreading out a cost currently borne by a limited number of people to all taxpayers. His plan for free public college would do this: right now, it’s paid for by students and their families, while under Sanders’ plan we’d all pay for it in the same way we all pay for parks or the military or food safety.

Regardless of the merits of Sanders' plan for free college education, THIS is a ridiculous statement. If tax money was not being used to pay for college for people before, and it would be under Sanders' plan, then it is NEW spending.

That's not a criticism of you, Buster..... you were only quoted because your post contained the source material.
 
Top