2016 Presidential Horse Race

[BGIF]

I seriously doubt anything will come of this, other than political ammunition for her opponents during the election cycle. That said, this kind of stuff is what gives me pause about Hillary and Bill Clinton. It is almost like they are trying to create controversy with their actions. While some of the "scandal" surrounding them is certainly a product of aggessive opposition (the "vast right wing conspiracy"), why would she not just hand over the server from the start and move on? The same arguments could have been made three or four months ago, with more time between the incident and the election. Give your opponents more time to go full bore and burn people out on this story -- like they did with Benghazi -- so it is not an issue on everyone's mind closer to the election. The way she handled this is just not smart politics, and it is just one more in a long line of behaviours that paint her as a person who thinks the rules don't apply to her.

Hence, my Nixon comments. All he had to do was burn the tapes before the court order appeared. Oops, our error. Sorry. She could have simply destroyed the server, what, a year ago before there were any hearings.

But was her treatment of the Rose Law Firm documents any different. The ones that didn't exist. That had been destroyed. Then miraculously in the White House living quarters on a table in plain sight. Gee, how did they get there?

The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy must have slipped past the Secret Service and all the WH staff to get in to the Living Quarters. Maybe, it was a vast wing mole posing as a PAC bundler and staying in the Lincoln rent a room?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

2016 Presidential Election Quiz

They've got a bunch of questions on issues, immigration, abortion, healthcare, foreign policy, environment, etc to match you with the 20 candidates. In addition to Yes and No responses, there is an Other Stances button. If you click on that you get about another half dozen choices to consider. You can also rate the importance of the issue from least to most with the slide bar to the left of the Yes/No buttons.

I'm a lifelong independent. I've voted for Democrats, Republicans, and Independent. I was stunned with my results.

83% Trump - I abhore him. He's actually at the bottom of my rankings regardless of party.
82% Bush - I've never been impressed with him. I liked his dad for the most part but thought his brother was terrible. Dynasty has no bearing on me. Earn it yourself.

I don't remember who rank next but there were several in the 70's and 60's.

72% Carson
66% Fiorina
64% Clinton

Two or three in the 50's

Sanders, Walker


Two in the 40's

42% Kasich - Dead last yet I was impressed with his responses at the first debate, his ability to get elected AND govern (work with the other side) in Ohio, and his part in a balanced congressional budget.

Without taking the test I would have had Trump and Kasich almost reversed. I don't know a lot about Kasich and want to turn off the sound when Trump speaks. He reminds me of Broderick Crawford playing Willy Stark in All the King's Men.

This is a very interesting tool and I personally believe anyone who votes should first take this quiz. I cringe when people claim to be straight party voters w/o even knowing who the candidates are. To me, that's irresponsible. Every election, I'm always torn: I tend to lean R for economic issues and smaller government, and D for most social issues. I've voted for Democrats, I've voted for Republicans. When I took this quiz, sure enough, it reflected that I support most Democrats when it comes to social issues but I support Republicans otherwise. So how do I prioritize my stance? That's what I need to decide for casting my vote in the upcoming election. Thanks BGIF.

My results:

Rand Paul, The Trump, Jeb Bush were tops for Republicans
Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley were tops for Democrats

 

[IrishinSyria]

Taking that quiz now but is whether we should continue to have National parks really an issue in this election? If so, that's terrifying.

 

[ACamp1900]

Taking that quiz now but is whether we should continue to have National parks really an issue in this election? If so, that's terrifying.

Why would it even be a question, they're like the only example of gov stepping in and undoubtedly improving something.

 

[GoIrish41]

Taking that quiz now but is whether we should continue to have National parks really an issue in this election? If so, that's terrifying.

It is for the Green Party. Also the issue about opening up Alaskan territory to drilling is a big one for some on both sides.

 

[phgreek]

Why would it even be a question, their like the only example of gov stepping in and undoubtedly improving something.

yea that question made me wander what the real intent was here. I know in Utah, the federal government has their eye on a number of places they want to designate certain ways. I think the biggest part of new designations has to do with stopping oil exploration etc.

Stuff that already exists is mostly ok...

however I will say the Federal government sucks at actually managing "wilderness". If you think you can put a rope around something, and leave...you don't get the stewardship requirement. You need to allow controlled logging and burns or your shit will burn in massive wildfires. Yea I suppose it was like that at some point in time...shit just burned...but its not a necessary or acceptable risk anymore. Bordering state and private property end up getting burned because fire doesn't know to just burn Federal wilderness ground...ya know.

Seems like the Federal government has the desire but not the resources to claim more wilderness ground. Outside that, it all seems ok.

 

[connor_in]

Why would it even be a question, they're like the only example of gov stepping in and undoubtedly improving something.

I will have to see if I can find it, but somewhere a year or two ago (or maybe more now) there was an article that detailed the history of the management of preserving one of the better known national parks. It was basically one unintended consequence after another as they took steps to adjust something because of another change they had made and it kept screwing up something else and then they had to fix that.

Now, I am all for state and national parks. I have visited many and will continue to, but based on that item, if true, then the "management" of them is far more involved and intricate then what the govt thought or seeming had the ability to handle. Thus between that and people wanting very limited govt, I could see a small set of people who want to do away with national parks the federal govt takes care of, but they may not mind it more on a state level (possibly).

EDIT: I didn't see phgreek's #1606 post...similar idea

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Taking that quiz now but is whether we should continue to have National parks really an issue in this election? If so, that's terrifying.

It is for the Green Party. Also the issue about opening up Alaskan territory to drilling is a big one for some on both sides.

Right. And don't forget to use the slider on the left to distinguish the relative importance per question. I think my results would have been a lot different had I used different degrees of importance.

 

[BGIF]

Right. And don't forget to use the slider on the right to distinguish the relative importance per question. I think my results would have been a lot different had I used different degrees of importance.

I agree.

As an independent picking my issues regardless of party platform I don't have the burn for so many issues that so many here express in the political threads. I think I only had 5 or 6 items checked "Most" and I had none checked least. I think I selectd "Less" once or twice. Any of the 20 candidates have several areas with strong convictions. And that's what the party extremists want in their candidate whether they're looking for the union lable or a voter I.D. card.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Surprisingly, that quiz paired me with:

Bernie Sanders - 84%

Hillary Clinton - 77%

Mike Huckabee - 69%

Rand Paul - 65%

I was already starting to lean towards ol' Bernie if a Democrat was to be elected.

Anyone else sharing their results?

 

[BGIF]

Taking that quiz now but is whether we should continue to have National parks really an issue in this election? If so, that's terrifying.

When the government went through sequestration, one of the first things the Administration shutdown was parks including WH tours to make sure the taxpayers felt the pinch. If it wasn't an two party issue, Obama and Sec Interior made it one there.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I agree.

As an independent picking my issues regardless of party platform I don't have the burn for so many issues that so many here express in the political threads. I think I only had 5 or 6 items checked "Most" and I had none checked least. I think I selectd "Less" once or twice. Any of the 20 candidates have several areas with strong convictions. And that's what the party extremists want in their candidate whether they're looking for the union lable or a voter I.D. card.

Mark Cuban addressed this with a quote that suits my personal beliefs perfectly:

In a post on his Cyber Dust social-media app, the outspoken billionaire investor wrote that he would prefer to join the GOP but had an issue with the party's push for conformity.

"I would prefer to be a Republican," Cuban wrote in the post, which was flagged by The Dallas Morning News. "I want smaller government. I want smarter government. Just like most Republicans. Put aside that I disagree with Republicans on most social issues. The Republicans have a much bigger problem that will crush them in every presidential election until this changes."

Cuban lamented that those who disagree with the "consensus" were called fake Republicans.

"The Republican Party requires that all their presidential candidates conform to consensus," he said. "If you don't agree with every platform of the party, not only are you called a RINO, a 'Republican in Name Only.' You are considered unelectable in primaries and become a source of scorn on Fox News. That's a problem."

"Until things change, I'll sit in the middle and think for myself."

This is exactly why I can never make up my mind. I side with R on some issues and with D on others. There is never a R candidate who is "half-way republican" (nor is there a half-way democrat). You either take 100% one or the other. The U.S.A. is way too diverse to have a president who is a party conformist. Just my opinion.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Surprisingly, that quiz paired me with:

Bernie Sanders - 84%

Hillary Clinton - 77%

Mike Huckabee - 69%

Rand Paul - 65%

I was already starting to lean towards ol' Bernie if a Democrat was to be elected.

Anyone else sharing their results?

Mine were almost identical. Except I had Trump instead of Huckabee.

 

[ACamp1900]

That first Cuban paragraph is my personal politics in a nut shell....

 

[Wild Bill]

Mark Cuban addressed this with a quote that suits my personal beliefs perfectly:



This is exactly why I can never make up my mind. I side with R on some issues and with D on others. There is never a R candidate who is "half-way republican" (nor is there a half-way democrat). You either take 100% one or the other. The U.S.A. is way too diverse to have a president who is a party conformist. Just my opinion.

"The Republican Party requires that all their presidential candidates conform to consensus," he said. "If you don't agree with every platform of the party, not only are you called a RINO, a 'Republican in Name Only.' You are considered unelectable in primaries and become a source of scorn on Fox News. That's a problem."

Does it get more moderate than Romney and McCain?

 

[connor_in]

Tips on Deleting Emails From Email Book Hillary Clinton Wanted to Read - ABC News

The last batch of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department included one from Clinton asking to borrow a book called “Send: Why People Email So Badly and How to Do It Better,” by David Shipley and Will Schwalbe.

Clinton has not said why she requested the book, but it includes some advice that is particularly interesting in light of the controversy over her unconventional email arrangement at the State Department and her decision to delete tens of thousands of emails she deemed to be purely personal.

The copy that ABC downloaded for $9.99 had some interesting revelations.

Take, for example, Chapter Six: “The Email That Can Land You In Jail.” The chapter includes a section entitled “How to Delete Something So It Stays Deleted.”

“Some people are hoarders, some are checkers,” the authors write. “The main thing to consider is that once you do decide to delete, it’s like taking the garbage from your kitchen and putting it in your hallway. It’s still there.”

The chapter advised that to truly delete emails may require a special rewriting program “to make sure that it’s not just elsewhere on the drive but has in fact been written over sixteen or twenty times and rendered undefinable.”

But Shipley and Schwalbe warn that deleting emails could lead to future legal troubles.

On page 215, the authors list “Stupid (and Real) Email Phrases That Wound Up in Court.” Number one on the list? “DELETE THIS EMAIL!’ Later, on page 226, the writers warn, “If you’re issued a subpoena, your deletion binge will only make you look guilty.”

‘SAY WHAAAT?!’ Amanda Carpenter highlights real chapters of book Hillary Clinton sought; It’s beyond parody! | Twitchy

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Does it get more moderate than Romney and McCain?

They were moderates who ran as extreme conservatives (Romney called himself "severely conservative," I believe). Their VP selections reflect that. Because of how engaged the tea party wing of the party is (especially in the early primaries), that's the only way to get the nomination...McCain in immigration, Romney on health care...they ran away from previous positions. Also, McCain is as hawkish you can get.

But, as a liberal, I thought they were the best alternatives on the Republican side. Both are generally adults (save for McCain's occasional old man rants ). I don't think people like Bachmann, Santorum, Cruz, or Trump fall into that category.

 

[phgreek]

Tips on Deleting Emails From Email Book Hillary Clinton Wanted to Read - ABC News




‘SAY WHAAAT?!’ Amanda Carpenter highlights real chapters of book Hillary Clinton sought; It’s beyond parody! | Twitchy

going through some of this I noticed James Wood's Twitter account...went and took a look. I think his acting career is done...but he has a future in standup. I think Fox news ought to go ahead and take the John Stewart model and give it to a conservative like Woods...

 

[Cackalacky]

Sanders-94%
Clinton - 86%
O'Malley - 77%
Paul 55%

All Republicans <25% Lol

Cack is firm in his Progressive commitment.

 

[Cackalacky]

going through some of this I noticed James Wood's Twitter account...went and took a look. I think his acting career is done...but he has a future in standup. I think Fox news ought to go ahead and take the John Stewart model and give it to a conservative like Woods...

Woods is a pyschopath on twitter.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Sanders-94%
Clinton - 86%
O'Malley - 77%
Paul 55%

All Republicans <25% Lol

Cack is firm in his Progressive commitment.

I'm pretty much exactly here.

 

[Wild Bill]

They were moderates who ran as extreme conservatives (Romney called himself "severely conservative," I believe). Their VP selections reflect that. Because of how engaged the tea party wing of the party is (especially in the early primaries), that's the only way to get the nomination...McCain in immigration, Romney on health care...they ran away from previous positions. Also, McCain is as hawkish you can get.

But, as a liberal, I thought they were the best alternatives on the Republican side. Both are generally adults (save for McCain's occasional old man rants ). I don't think people like Bachmann, Santorum, Cruz, or Trump fall into that category.

So if they were the most moderate of the bunch, this statement is simply not true:

If you don't agree with every platform of the party, not only are you called a RINO, a 'Republican in Name Only.' You are considered unelectable in primaries and become a source of scorn on Fox News. That's a problem.

The reality is that the GOP ran their moderates and lost to the most left wing candidate the dems could find.

The RINOs have burned conservatives far too many times with their liberal tax and spend nonsense. They should be exposed before they get power.

 

[connor_in]

going through some of this I noticed James Wood's Twitter account...went and took a look. I think his acting career is done...but he has a future in standup. I think Fox news ought to go ahead and take the John Stewart model and give it to a conservative like Woods...

as a followup...there is now a hashtag on twitter: #HillarysBookshelf

 

[GoIrish41]

The reality is that the GOP ran their moderates and lost to the most left wing candidate the dems could find.

The RINOs have burned conservatives far too many times with their liberal tax and spend nonsense. They should be exposed before they get power.

I would argue that the GOP made it impossible for their moderate candidates to be successful by forcing them too far right during the primaries. The conservatives, in other words, burned their moderates.

W. was a moderate and won (largely because his reasonable stance on immigration did not alienate the fastest growing deomographic in the country). This begs the question of which is better ... liberal tax and spend policies, or conservative cut tax and continue to spend policies? Even if the "liberal" problem is as unsettling as you believe, it has to be superior to running up the credit card while diminishing the nation's income. For my entire life, I've been listening to republicans tell me that the GOP is the party of economic responsibility, but every time they are in office, they blow the budget while trying to appeal to the public by cutting taxes (especially on the rich). This is a huge contributor to their inability to be trusted with the keys again.

 

[GATTACA!]

92% Rubio
90% Santorum....yuck
89% Bush
76% Trump
59% Kasich
44% Clinton
33% Sanders

 

[wizards8507]

I would argue that the GOP made it impossible for their moderate candidates to be successful by forcing them too far right during the primaries. The conservatives, in other words, burned their moderates.

W. was a moderate and won (largely because his reasonable stance on immigration did not alienate the fastest growing deomographic in the country). This begs the question of which is better ... liberal tax and spend policies, or conservative cut tax and continue to spend policies? Even if the "liberal" problem is as unsettling as you believe, it has to be superior to running up the credit card while diminishing the nation's income. For my entire life, I've been listening to republicans tell me that the GOP is the party of economic responsibility, but every time they are in office, they blow the budget while trying to appeal to the public by cutting taxes (especially on the rich). This is a huge contributor to their inability to be trusted with the keys again.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you argue that only moderate Republican candidates can get elected. On the other hand, you say a major problem with Republicans is than they're hypocritical about budget management because they want to cut taxes but continue to spend like the Democrats do. In other words, the problem with Republican politicians is that they abandon conservatism.

 

[GoIrish41]

Top 5
Bernie - 98%
Clinton - 93%
O'Malley - 85%
Huckabee - 51%
Christie - 46%

Bottom 5
Cruz - 5%
Santorum - 9%
Rubio - 12%
Graham - 13%
Walker - 15%

 

[Ndaccountant]

So if they were the most moderate of the bunch, this statement is simply not true:



The reality is that the GOP ran their moderates and lost to the most left wing candidate the dems could find.

You and I are usually lock step in everything, but this time we are not.

I have read studies/polling figures that suggest the general public is leaning more left than 20 years ago. Makes sense considering the views held by many now on Gay marriage and weed. During that time both republicans and democrats have become more "liberal or conservative" since that time. However, that isn't the whole story.

For the last 20 years, the average Democrat has slowly, and steadily, moved left. Conservatives, for the most part, stayed pretty consistent for the first 10 years and then has moved right quickly over the last 10 years. So what took the Dem's 20 years to do, the R's took 10.

Keeping that in mind, consider the notion that the right has put up candidates recently who they perceived were the most moderate. But they were moderate only when compared to the individuals that have pushed the party right at an accelerating pace. Now compare that to the general population, who has slowly moved left, the republican party looks more and more estranged. Meanwhile, the Democrats put up someone left of center for their own party, who appears to be ultra left to the average republican. To the general public, the Dem candidate appears to be somewhat liberal, but to the average republican, looks damn near socialist. It really is all about perception and where you stand on the political spectrum.

My biggest complaint, as what Cuban said, is that the R's focus far too much time and effort on social policies, the exact policies that mainstream America are moving slowly left. They don't need to fight that battle. Instead, focus time and effort on policies that will promote the notion of small government while still tackling the issues like immigration in a sensible way that will appeal to the average voter. Unfortunately, the base of the party is moving farther right, which propels this notion to "fix" the social issues back to their comfort zone. Problem is, their comfort zone is no longer the comfort zone of the average citizen.

 

[connor_in]

92% Rubio
90% Santorum....yuck
89% Bush
76% Trump
59% Kasich
44% Clinton
33% Sanders

Mine was similar, but HRC was only at 6% for me and Fiorina was up near the top just behind Rubio.

My biggest question on this is what is causing Huckabee to be the top R for most of the D's here?

 

[Ndaccountant]

Mine was similar, but HRC was only at 6% for me and Fiorina was up near the top just behind Rubio.

My biggest question on this is what is causing Huckabee to be the top R for most of the D's here?

They love this guy......