2016 Presidential Horse Race

[phgreek]

The whole premise of the Super Delegate is to save the establishment from folks like Bernie. I don't understand why people are so surprised by Clinton locking down all the Supers when it is exactly what the system is designed to produce?

You can bet the Republican establishment is jealous of the Super Delegate Dems "protecting" them from the shit sandwich they got serve last night.

...Nothing new other than how I suspect Clinton is doing it vs. how others went about it.

I am comfortable saying IL + Clinton = Corruption/Illegal Activity

 

[GowerND11]

lol Lou gonna have to explain himself come election time if he keeps up his Trump support after he donated a bag of cash to Hilary's campaign when she ran in 2008

He could pull the Reagan line: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Party left me."

You really think anyone is gonna give two shitz about what Lou Holtz thinks or did come election time?

Also, this.

 

[Wild Bill]

Agreed. Welcome to IE.

I think Trump will go with Rubio. If Clinton wins Florida basically nothing else matters.

I'm not sure Rubio would be a willing running mate.

Rubio got smoked in the Florida primary too.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">As <a href="https://twitter.com/tylercowen">@tylercowen</a> says, if the idea of President Trump scares you, maybe you should consider restricting government power.</p>— Paul Musgrave (@rpmusgra) <a href="https://twitter.com/rpmusgra/status/727669639266877442">May 4, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[ACamp1900]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">As <a href="https://twitter.com/tylercowen">@tylercowen</a> says, if the idea of President Trump scares you, maybe you should consider restricting government power.</p>— Paul Musgrave (@rpmusgra) <a href="https://twitter.com/rpmusgra/status/727669639266877442">May 4, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Rack Em]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">As <a href="https://twitter.com/tylercowen">@tylercowen</a> says, if the idea of President Trump scares you, maybe you should consider restricting government power.</p>— Paul Musgrave (@rpmusgra) <a href="https://twitter.com/rpmusgra/status/727669639266877442">May 4, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Where will I get all of my large, bureaucratic government benefits?

 

[Ndaccountant]

Where will I get all of my large, bureaucratic government benefits?

Illinois

 

[wizards8507]

Goodbye, Republican Party. And Good Riddance. | TheBlaze.com

 

[wizards8507]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">As <a href="https://twitter.com/tylercowen">@tylercowen</a> says, if the idea of President Trump scares you, maybe you should consider restricting government power.</p>— Paul Musgrave (@rpmusgra) <a href="https://twitter.com/rpmusgra/status/727669639266877442">May 4, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

#StandWithRand

 

[connor_in]

I'm not sure Rubio would be a willing running mate.

Rubio got smoked in the Florida primary too.

Trump will pick Bernie Kosar and lock up OH and FL

 

[gkIrish]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">As <a href="https://twitter.com/tylercowen">@tylercowen</a> says, if the idea of President Trump scares you, maybe you should consider restricting government power.</p>— Paul Musgrave (@rpmusgra) <a href="https://twitter.com/rpmusgra/status/727669639266877442">May 4, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Ding ding

 

[NDgradstudent]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">As <a href="https://twitter.com/tylercowen">@tylercowen</a> says, if the idea of President Trump scares you, maybe you should consider restricting government power.</p>— Paul Musgrave (@rpmusgra) <a href="https://twitter.com/rpmusgra/status/727669639266877442">May 4, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I would like to restrict government power as much as the next guy, but one lesson of American history is that the Constitution has not restricted government power. This isn't the Constitution's "fault," obviously, it is not self-enforcing; whether or not it gets enforced by any legal officials depends upon popular and other supports for it. Our Constitution enjoys a ceremonial existence, but does not play any substantive role in what the government does (it limits the ages of officials, etc., but that's about it).

This is why the British system of government is superior to our own. There is no written constitution that purports to limit the government there, nor any Supreme Court that "enforces" the Constitution (which it doesn't actually do, as most people know). The government is limited by what the voters want, and while I want a very small government as much as anyone else, you aren't going to get that absent popular support.

And if this were a popular policy, we would not be looking at Trump vs. Clinton.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

The whole premise of the Super Delegate is to save the establishment from folks like Bernie. I don't understand why people are so surprised by Clinton locking down all the Supers when it is exactly what the system is designed to produce?

You can bet the Republican establishment is jealous of the Super Delegate Dems "protecting" them from the shit sandwich they got serve last night.

This is true however, in this particular election cycle the populist view is that our system is rigged and the wealthy have a stranglehold on our politicians in order to do what's best for them and not the country. The perception of the super delegates to a "typical" American is just more of the same rigged system. The truth doesn't matter in this case. And Bernie is using it to fuel his supporters. Trump would be doing the exact same. They're both the outsiders, trying to get in. One just had a much easier path.

 

[RDU Irish]

This is true however, in this particular election cycle the populist view is that our system is rigged and the wealthy have a stranglehold on our politicians in order to do what's best for them and not the country. The perception of the super delegates to a "typical" American is just more of the same rigged system. The truth doesn't matter in this case. And Bernie is using it to fuel his supporters. Trump would be doing the exact same. They're both the outsiders, trying to get in. One just had a much easier path.

Which is all true. When you get enough power you can just cast your pawns to the side. I guess it is surprising because nobody was paying attention and now that lack of diligence is coming home to roost. Piss them off enough and maybe they vote for Trump, more likely they all stay home.

The electoral college piece is telling - Rs need to get blown up and re-emerge without the social "conservatism" dragging their ass down. Maybe some gonads to actually reduce government in the process.

 

[GATTACA!]

Trump will pick Bernie Kosar and lock up OH and FL

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The electoral college piece is telling - Rs need to get blown up and re-emerge without the social "conservatism" dragging their ass down. Maybe some gonads to actually reduce government in the process.

So, Clintonism?

 

[NorthDakota]

The electoral college piece is telling - Rs need to get blown up and re-emerge without the social "conservatism" dragging their ass down. Maybe some gonads to actually reduce government in the process.

Should the church become more liberal to appease cafeteria Catholics?

So, Clintonism?

(shudders)

 

[connor_in]

John Kasich ends Republican presidential campaign - 953MNC.com

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">John Kasich has suspended his campaign. I assume to continue to pursue his Martial Arts career. <a href="https://t.co/mL6Nxf8iLP">pic.twitter.com/mL6Nxf8iLP</a></p>— BigHeadSports (@BigHeadSports) <a href="https://twitter.com/BigHeadSports/status/727899499222446080">May 4, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[BleedBlueGold]

So, Clintonism?

Yup. Revised NeoLibs are probably best bet for "The party formerly known as" Republicans (Too soon?) to get back the WH. Bring in social progressivism combined with more conservative economics and there's something to work with imo.

 

[GoIrish41]

Which is all true. When you get enough power you can just cast your pawns to the side. I guess it is surprising because nobody was paying attention and now that lack of diligence is coming home to roost. Piss them off enough and maybe they vote for Trump, more likely they all stay home.

The electoral college piece is telling - Rs need to get blown up and re-emerge without the social "conservatism" dragging their ass down. Maybe some gonads to actually reduce government in the process.

And then the party can return to being a rational, constructive force for good instead of a "anything the Dems say, I disagree with" party. I refuse to believe that there is not more common ground among Americans than there appears to be. It also would not hurt to take a long hard look at how money is influencing our politics in general. As much as I dislike Trump, he will likely kick off a critical course correction for the GOP. I hope that they take this to heart, and come out a better party for the sake of the country. And yes, the Dems have plenty of work to do as well.

Hillary (and Bill) are the ultimate gamesmen politicians. They have been kicking the asses of republicans for decades because they are just better at maneuvering in the existing system than anyone else. That is not a good thing. I suspect it has a lot to do with why the GOP hates Hillary so much. She isn't likely to give up her role as the top power broker easily, but the Dems need to rise up and make her move in that direction or else this election is just a bridge to the same dysfunctional destination we have been in for years.

 

[Rack Em]

Yup. Revised NeoLibs are probably best bet for "The party formerly known as" Republicans (Too soon?) to get back the WH. Bring in social progressivism combined with more conservative economics and there's something to work with imo.

Yeah well there is a significant portion of the Republican base that won't go for that. It's the same portion that voted for Cruz + others in the primaries.

 

[ACamp1900]

Trump will pick Bernie Kosar and lock up OH and FL

Such a rep whore move... take your f'ing reps,...... whore

 

[Rack Em]

And then the party can return to being a rational, constructive force for good instead of a "anything the Dems say, I disagree with" party.

So social conservatism is irrational and destructive?

The D's have pushed a progressive agenda since 2008. I'm not always proud of the R's pushback tactics, but pretty much any major policy proposal from D's has been antithetical to traditional R positions circa Reagan.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Yup. Revised NeoLibs are probably best bet for "The party formerly known as" Republicans (Too soon?) to get back the WH. Bring in social progressivism combined with more conservative economics and there's something to work with imo.

You're suggesting that the lesson the GOP should take away from Trump's hostile take-over is: "Oh, you wanted us to be more like the Democrats all along?" Which is obviously incorrect.

I agree that the GOP, as the "Party of Reagan", is now dead, and that whatever replaces it will be significantly different. I also agree that social and religious conservatives are unlikely to be a major part of whatever new coalition it assembles. But it's definitely not going to be socially Progressive and neo-liberal economically. An opposition party has to, ya know, actually oppose what it's counter-part is advocating. What RDU has suggested is not significantly different from Clintonism, which has been an option (indeed, prior to Bernie, the only option left of the GOP) since 1992.

Anyone who likes Clintonism hasn't been in open revolt by supporting Bernie or Trump against The Establishment™. Whatever comes next for the GOP is going to have to make major accommodations to that populist energy, which Clintonism isn't capable of doing.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Which is all true. When you get enough power you can just cast your pawns to the side. I guess it is surprising because nobody was paying attention and now that lack of diligence is coming home to roost. Piss them off enough and maybe they vote for Trump, more likely they all stay home.

The electoral college piece is telling - Rs need to get blown up and re-emerge without the social "conservatism" dragging their ass down. Maybe some gonads to actually reduce government in the process.

Social conservatism is not the problem for the GOP. It certainly was not the reason that either Romney or McCain lost, and it didn't hurt Bush much. In any case, we now have a GOP nominee who is hardly socially conservative, but nor is he a libertarian, and so the libertarians still dislike him. Political parties are not designed to align perfectly with any given set of views.

Presidential races are principally decided by structural factors. Demographic changes that help the Democrats simply increase the Democrats' floor and reduce the GOP's margin for error.

 

[connor_in]

... pretty much any major policy proposal from D's has been antithetical to traditional R positions circa Reagan.

That's not true, Rack. Everyone KNOWS that there is no basis for R disagreements with Ds other than just taking an opposite point of view in order to be contrarian. The Rs have no reasoning or philosophy behind ANY of their positions.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

You're suggesting that the lesson the GOP should take away from Trump's hostile take-over is: "Oh, you wanted us to be more like the Democrats all along?" Which is obviously incorrect.

I agree that the GOP, as the "Party of Reagan", is now dead, and that whatever replaces it will be significantly different. I also agree that social and religious conservatives are unlikely to be a major part of whatever new coalition it assembles. But it's definitely not going to be socially Progressive and neo-liberal economically. An opposition party has to, ya know, actually oppose what it's counter-part is advocating. What RDU has suggested is not significantly different from Clintonism, which has been an option (indeed, prior to Bernie, the only option left of the GOP) since 1992.

Anyone who likes Clintonism hasn't been in open revolt by supporting Bernie or Trump against The Establishment™. Whatever comes next for the GOP is going to have to make major accommodations to that populist energy, which Clintonism isn't capable of doing.

There's nothing wrong with social conservatism if that's your belief. I just believe the country, as a whole, leans left on almost every social issue so making it (social conservatism) such a huge part of your party platform sets you at a disadvantage right out of the gate. I think you agree with me on this based on your post. I didn't say neo liberal economics, though. I said more conservative economics than the neo libs (right of Hillary, not her equal). There are plenty of issues to oppose if you're a new conservative up against a neo liberal. I'm just suggesting that the social and religious aspects not take up such a huge chunk of the party platform. The more diverse groups of people you can relate to, the better your chances of getting their vote. *I'm not suggesting pandering. I'm simply suggesting that the new party learn to be more inclusive socially, but still maintain their conservative values economically and otherwise.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Yup. Revised NeoLibs are probably best bet for "The party formerly known as" Republicans (Too soon?) to get back the WH. Bring in social progressivism combined with more conservative economics and there's something to work with imo.

This is a non-starter politically. First of all, every candidate running said they were pro-life, even if they made exceptions for "hard cases," and even if they were lying. The point is that we didn't get a liberal Republican 'I'm pro-choice' candidate, because everybody knows that it is a non-starter. As long as half the country is pro-life, one of the political parties will (and ought to) reflect that.

I just believe the country, as a whole, leans left on almost every social issue so making it (social conservatism) such a huge part of your party platform sets you at a disadvantage right out of the gate.

First of all, as the chart I presented above indicates, the state of the economy is the principal driver of Presidential election results. Demographics limit the range of possible outcomes in any given cycle, but being pro-life has not been a major factor one way or the other. The "gender gap" is really a marriage gap, and it has been around for a long time. It is not caused by issues like abortion. Second, which 'social issues' are you talking about? The country leans left (now) on gay marriage, although not on the religious liberty issues surrounding gay marriage. The country does not lean left on abortion, or guns, or immigration. It is divided on these issues, and the parties simply reflect these divisions.

 

[dales5050]

Goodbye, Republican Party. And Good Riddance. | TheBlaze.com

To the Crazy 'Family Value' Christians who ran the Republican Party into the ground I say don't let the door hit you in the ass while you're on the way out.

Trump would be a bad President, better than Clinton, but still pretty bad. That said, if him getting the ticket allows the right to once and for all put these narrow minded idiots back under the rock rather than giving them power...GOOD!

Maybe then we can focus on fiscal policy rather than chasing the tail on issues like abortion and pro-homophobic policy.

 

[GATTACA!]

Bye bye Kasich. We hardly knew you.......no for real, barely anyone knows who you are.