2016 Presidential Horse Race

[kmoose]

It would be informed by one of my political heroes, Teddy Roosevelt, who championed the "Square Deal," promising Americans fairness as he set about breaking the trusts, regulating railroads, and ensuring purity of food and drug supplies.

..............And white supremacy!

Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any more ironic............

 

[NDinL.A.]

FWIW, I read your above lumping of all white people into some privileged, protected group as a fairly racist sentiment, but maybe I read it wrong.

My family and I have been subject to plenty of racism over the last few years: "Pastey, cracker, ghost" not to mention questionable treatment in places where we the minority....but you know what? Those people were all ignorant...I didn't hate them.....didn't hate racism....just pitied them, and life goes on. We stopped working/shopping/visiting those places we felt unwanted and moved to a better place.

Yeah, you read it wrong. It was just those two, who have been on that train for quite some time.

Edit: I'll add that both of these guys rail against the left/liberals for being soft and always whining about people being unfair to them as well as looking for handouts, but in the next breath they act soft and whine about how hard their lives are because they are white. They hate the left and yet they act exactly like they portray the left. And I say this as someone who has voted Republican my entire life until Trump came along. But the way some of these guys represent the Conservative party is an embarrassment IMHO.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I won't get into the 20 million people who have health insurance who probably don't see the ACA as anything as terrifying as you suggest.

But OK, that's your start ... no new levers. There are still a shitload of levers that your plan so far has not accounted for -- employees and officials of federal agencies, Congress, staffers, DoD employees, etc., etc. Given that writing laws to outlaw the affect of money on politics would be naive and impossible, I was curious how you planned "the much more prudent course of action ... destroy(ing) the levers of power so that nobody can use them for their own ends" is thoughtful and practical. It seems to me that your suggestion would be to completely eliminate government?

It's simple. There are 18 enumerated powers. Have you heard of them? Read them? Conservatives and many libertarians acknowledge that as government grows, freedom contracts. They just want the feds to do what they're supposed to do, and leave the rest to the states.

 

[kmoose]

George Bush Sr. caused Reagan some major heartburn, too. He called Dutch's economic theory Voodoo economics on the campaign trail, and that term stuck through much of the election cycle. Ultimately he brought Bush on board to attract his supporters so he could win the election. There are multiple examples of candidates choosing someone who they have had disagreements with in the past in order to win elections.

I think maybe you are misremembering the 1980 Republican primaries, where Reagan won 44 states to Bush's 6. Reagan won 59.8% of the popular vote to Bush's 23.8%. It was a rout.

 

[Irish YJ]

It's simple. There are 18 enumerated powers. Have you heard of them? Read them? Conservatives and many libertarians acknowledge that as government grows, freedom contracts. They just want the feds to do what they're supposed to do, and leave the rest to the states.

butt, butt, butt, butt more government means we have more social programs, equal opportunity, and economic fairness.... we should all be willing to sacrifice freedom for the good of the world.

"Capitalism is using its money; we socialists throw it away." — Fidel Castro

 

[GoIrish41]

It's simple. There are 18 enumerated powers. Have you heard of them? Read them? Conservatives and many libertarians acknowledge that as government grows, freedom contracts. They just want the feds to do what they're supposed to do, and leave the rest to the states.

And then the red states can do what they do and ignore the poor and leave them to fend for themselves. Without the fed the states often fail their citizens, who also happen to be US citizens. You can explain a problem, but ignore how it became one and prescribe more of the same. These services are provided to help poor people because nobody was helping them ... including the states.

 

[GoIrish41]

I think maybe you are misremembering the 1980 Republican primaries, where Reagan won 44 states to Bush's 6. Reagan won 59.8% of the popular vote to Bush's 23.8%. It was a rout.

I'm not misremembering anything. Ever heard the term VooDoo Economics? That was the zinger Bush laid on Reaganomics. He attached that term to Ronald Reagan and it still gets mentioned on TV new shows now and then. It was a solid hit on Reagan's economic chops. At the time, Reagan had to work hard in the primaries to ease the stigma (no matter the final and at the time unknown outcome of the primaries) and he had to defend against that term nonstop through the general. He needed Bush's 24% to win the general (at least he thought he did) and he brought him on largely to placate the folks who thought his economic plan was a fantasy. Bush gave him credibility with those voters.

 

[kmoose]

I'm not misremembering anything. Ever heard the term VooDoo Economics? That was the zinger Bush laid on Reaganomics. He attached that term to Ronald Reagan and it still gets mentioned on TV new shows now and then. It was a solid hit on Reagan's economic chops. At the time, Reagan had to work hard in the primaries to ease the stigma (no matter the final and at the time unknown outcome of the primaries) and he had to defend against that term nonstop through the general. He needed Bush's 24% to win the general (at least he thought he did) and he brought him on largely to placate the folks who thought his economic plan was a fantasy. Bush gave him credibility with those voters.

Yes. Winning 44 out of 50 states is "some major heartburn"...

 

[GoIrish41]

Yes. Winning 44 out of 50 states is "some major heartburn"...

Are you willfully ignoring my point? In hindsight it may seem like no big deal, but at the time when the primaries were yet to happen, VooDoo Economics was a big deal ... and remained a big deal the entire election. And when the election was still undecided, he brought Bush on to unify the party. Even after he won and was on his second term, he had to defend against the term when the economic situation slowed.

 

[kmoose]

Are you willfully ignoring my point? In hindsight it may seem like no big deal, but at the time when the primaries were yet to happen, VooDoo Economics was a big deal ... and remained a big deal the entire election. And when the election was still undecided, he brought Bush on to unify the party. Even after he won and was on his second term, he had to defend against the term when the economic situation slowed.

Bush dropped out of the nomination race in May, after only 22 states. You act like it went right down to the wire. Reagan selected Bush as his running mate because Bush had foreign policy experience as the Ambassador to the UN, Envoy to China, Director of CIA, and as a director of The Council on Foreign Relations. Bush was also a Washington insider; Reagan was not.

You comparing Reagan bringing Bush on to Clinton possibly asking Sanders to come onboard is comparing apples to unicorns.

 

[woolybug25]

Bush dropped out of the nomination race in May, after only 22 states. You act like it went right down to the wire. Reagan selected Bush as his running mate because Bush had foreign policy experience as the Ambassador to the UN, Envoy to China, Director of CIA, and as a director of The Council on Foreign Relations. Bush was also a Washington insider; Reagan was not.

You comparing Reagan bringing Bush on to Clinton possibly asking Sanders to come onboard is comparing apples to unicorns.

He's talking about how it followed him through the general election and throughout his Presidency. How it was part of his legacy.

Geez... Dang man...

 

[GoIrish41]

Bush dropped out of the nomination race in May, after only 22 states. You act like it went right down to the wire. Reagan selected Bush as his running mate because Bush had foreign policy experience as the Ambassador to the UN, Envoy to China, Director of CIA, and as a director of The Council on Foreign Relations. Bush was also a Washington insider; Reagan was not.

You comparing Reagan bringing Bush on to Clinton possibly asking Sanders to come onboard is comparing apples to unicorns.

Is it? Bringing on a running mate who was an opponent that could help a candidate win an election? Sounds identical to me.

 

[GoIrish41]

He's talking about how it followed him through the general election and throughout his Presidency. How it was part of his legacy.

Geez... Dang man...

Exactly.

 

[kmoose]

He's talking about how it followed him through the general election and throughout his Presidency. How it was part of his legacy.

Geez... Dang man...

The guy (Reagan) won 44 states in the general election as well. He CRUSHED Carter in the electoral vote, 489-49. Practically a 10-1 margin.

"Well, Nancy. It sure is causing me a lot of heartburn, winning state after state after state after state....."

 

[kmoose]

Is it? Bringing on a running mate who was an opponent that could help a candidate win and election? Sounds identical to me.

Who is Sanders going to bring, that wouldn't already vote AGAINST Trump?

 

[woolybug25]

The guy (Reagan) won 44 states in the general election as well. He CRUSHED Carter in the electoral vote, 489-49. Practically a 10-1 margin.

"Well, Nancy. It sure is causing me a lot of heartburn, winning state after state after state after state....."

Can you please tell us how many states he won?

Do people still talk about "voodoo economics"? Yes? Ok then... we don't need any additional annotates on how he performed in the elections. That wasn't GoIrish's point. I don't understand why you aren't getting this. lol

 

[GoIrish41]

Who is Sanders going to bring, that wouldn't already vote AGAINST Trump?

Question is, who does Sanders bring that would stay home if Sanders isn't on the ticket? I see you understand what the results of elections were after the votes were counted, but I wonder if you have ever paid attention to how elections actually work and how back room deals are made to ensure party unity. You act of if Sanders being asked to be VP is some magic trick I'm doing that you can't figure out. This happens almost every other election cycle. Just ask LBJ, Al Gore, Joe Biden, Bob Dole, and, yes, Bush Sr. If you don't believe me.

 

[kmoose]

Can you please tell us how many states he won?

Do people still talk about "voodoo economics"? Yes? Ok then... we don't need any additional annotates on how he performed in the elections. That wasn't GoIrish's point. I don't understand why you aren't getting this. lol

His point was that Bush caused Reagan a lot of heartburn, and Reagan still chose him as a running mate. The fact of the matter is that Reagan was crushing everyone in primaries, so there was very little "heartburn" there, and certainly not any MAJOR heartburn. Any "heartburn" that it caused after the pick is immaterial because it could not have factored into Reagan's decision to pick Bush.

 

[woolybug25]

His point was that Bush caused Reagan a lot of heartburn, and Reagan still chose him as a running mate. The fact of the matter is that Reagan was crushing everyone in primaries, so there was very little "heartburn" there, and certainly not any MAJOR heartburn. Any "heartburn" that it caused after the pick is immaterial because it could not have factored into Reagan's decision to pick Bush.

Nevermind. You're not gonna get it. smh

 

[kmoose]

Question is, who does Sanders bring that would stay home if Sanders isn't on the ticket? I see you understand what the results of elections were after the votes were counted, but I wonder if you have ever paid attention to how elections actually work and how back room deals are made to ensure party unity.

Very few people are staying home if Sanders isn't on the ticket. The Democratic Party is ALL IN on Hillary Clinton, and has been ever since Monica Lewinsky produced a dress soaked in Bill Clinton's semen. The power brokers in the Democratic Party will put the full court press on EVERY "surrogate" out there, to get people to go to the polls in numbers. Speaking of which............. what exactly is a "surrogate", in political terms? This election cycle is the first time I can recall it being used. Is it just some media invention?

 

[kmoose]

Nevermind. You're not gonna get it. smh

I get it. It would appear that you do not.

 

[drayer54]

Very few people are staying home if Sanders isn't on the ticket. The Democratic Party is ALL IN on Hillary Clinton, and has been ever since Monica Lewinsky produced a dress soaked in Bill Clinton's semen. The power brokers in the Democratic Party will put the full court press on EVERY "surrogate" out there, to get people to go to the polls in numbers. Speaking of which............. what exactly is a "surrogate", in political terms? This election cycle is the first time I can recall it being used. Is it just some media invention?

I disagree.

I think many liberals are very apathetic towards her and won't bother to vote for her. I think the assumption is that Trump loses 60-35 and turnout will likely be much lower on the GOP side where republicans have to decide if they will get out of bed to check a box for one of the worst candidates in history.

All in all, I see a low turnout on both sides. I don't think this is an ALL in cycle on either side.

 

[GoIrish41]

Very few people are staying home if Sanders isn't on the ticket. The Democratic Party is ALL IN on Hillary Clinton, and has been ever since Monica Lewinsky produced a dress soaked in Bill Clinton's semen. The power brokers in the Democratic Party will put the full court press on EVERY "surrogate" out there, to get people to go to the polls in numbers. Speaking of which............. what exactly is a "surrogate", in political terms? This election cycle is the first time I can recall it being used. Is it just some media invention?

That's nice that this is how you think it will play out. Maybe you should do some research on what Bernie's supporters have to say on the topic.

 

[woolybug25]

I get it. It would appear that you do not.

Ok then... You are literally the only one that is relating his comment to how well he did in the primary or election. He clearly stated in multiple posts that he just gave him heartburn by creating the term "voodoo economics", a term that followed him since then and has became part of his legacy. He didn't once refer to him being in a close election, or the term costing him votes or talked about how many states he won (I forgot... could you tell us again?).

He just made the comment about how something early in a primary can cause heartburn and gave that example. You are the one not giving it up and telling us over and over and over and over and over and over again about how many damn states he won... fuck... nobody cares except you. It was never part of his point, only yours...

 

[drayer54]

That's nice that this is how you think it will play out. Maybe you should do some research on what Bernie's supporters have to say on the topic.

Maybe it should be revised to say that old liberal geezers are all in for Hillary and liberals under 45 are going to have record low turnout.

 

[EddytoNow]

The guy (Reagan) won 44 states in the general election as well. He CRUSHED Carter in the electoral vote, 489-49. Practically a 10-1 margin.

"Well, Nancy. It sure is causing me a lot of heartburn, winning state after state after state after state....."

That election was decided upon two issues: gasoline shortages and the Iranian Hostage Crisis. The timing of both issues caused Carter's popularity to plummet. Anyone who campaigned on toughness would have beaten Carter, who was perceived as weak on foreign policy. Unfortunately for Carter, the Iranians overthrew the Shah of Iran, who was viewed as a toady of the Americans, and held several Americans as hostages. Had the election taken place after the Egyptian-Israeli agreement, which Carter played a direct role in negotiating, Carter would have been reelected. The choosing of Bush as Reagan's running mate united the Republicans, but it was unnecessary given the frustration of the American people with Carter's ineffectiveness in dealing with the situation in Iran. Carter had no chance of being reelected.

 

[kmoose]

I disagree.

I think many liberals are very apathetic towards her and won't bother to vote for her. I think the assumption is that Trump loses 60-35 and turnout will likely be much lower on the GOP side where republicans have to decide if they will get out of bed to check a box for one of the worst candidates in history.

All in all, I see a low turnout on both sides. I don't think this is an ALL in cycle on either side.

Maybe not. I could certainly be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

 

[GoIrish41]

Maybe it should be revised to say that old liberal geezers are all in for Hillary and liberals under 45 are going to have record low turnout.

Indeed. And if Bernie is on the ticket, that changes the dynamic. And so, my argument ends where it began -- why it would be a smart move for Hillary to pick Bernie as her VP.

 

[kmoose]

That election was decided upon two issues: gasoline shortages and the Iranian Hostage Crisis. The timing of both issues caused Carter's popularity to plummet. Anyone who campaigned on toughness would have beaten Carter, who was perceived as weak on foreign policy. Unfortunately for Carter, the Iranians overthrew the Shah of Iran, who was viewed as a toady of the Americans, and held several Americans as hostages. Had the election taken place after the Egyptian-Israeli agreement, which Carter played a direct role in negotiating, Carter would have been reelected. The choosing of Bush as Reagan's running mate united the Republicans, but it was unnecessary given the frustration of the American people with Carter's ineffectiveness in dealing with the situation in Iran. Carter had no chance of being reelected.

It "united" the Republicans who had voted more than 2-1 (7.7M for Reagan to 3.0M for Bush) for Reagan?

And, really, your post just further reinforces my point that both the nomination and the general election were easy wins for Reagan, so GoIrish's "point" about Bush causing Reagan a lot of heartburn and Reagan needing Bush to bring in votes is just not true.

 

[GoIrish41]

It "united" the Republicans who had voted more than 2-1 (7.7M for Reagan to 3.0M for Bush) for Reagan?

And, really, your post just further reinforces my point that both the nomination and the general election were easy wins for Reagan, so GoIrish's "point" about Bush causing Reagan a lot of heartburn and Reagan needing Bush to bring in votes is just not true.

You are a silly man.