Will Herman Cain make a comeback?
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Can't stand Clinton, too much baggage IMO.
Surely now time for a strong Republican?
Surely now time for a strong Republican?
Virgnia and North Carolina are now key battleground states, no question about it. Hillary has to bank on a huge turnout by African-Americans (actually, the dash in words like African-America is quickly falling out of common usage now, but I'm not there yet), which is not a lock down certainty yet. Obama got that huge turnout, of course, but after 8 years where very little changed for African Americans (it's growing on me) I'm not sure Hillary has a case to make as to how she'll do more for them than Obama did.
Which takes me to the fundamental questions Hillary will have to answer: What is her vision for leadership and what would she do that did not get done under Obama? She conveys no sense, at least not yet, of what she will do as potus. Whatever one thinks of most of the Reps, and I agree with many caftards that most of these Reps are pure wackjobs, at least they give the voters a clear sense of what they would do in the even they have exclusive rights to Marine One. Hillary, love her or hate her, offers no agenda whatsoever, at least not to the public. Presumably that will change soon.
North Carolina isn't important from my perspective, it's still on the Republican side of the vote and if the Dems win it, it's a bit like Florida in that it adds some gloss to the final numbers without being key. Nevada is far more on the Dem side and they're extremely good at racking up the early votes there, they'd basically won it in '12 before polling day.
For the GOP, not winning North Carolina nearly eliminates their plausible paths to 270. For example, they could win Nevada, Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, and Florida and still only wind up with 266. However if they win NC and all the others except Colorado, they could still sneak a win at 272. Needless to say their paths to 270 are far more difficult than it will be for Hillary and the Dems. All she has to do is win one of Ohio, Florida, NC, or VA and the GOP path to 270 suddenly becomes next to impossible.
thats the whole point about Hillary. She is the incarnation of the political establishment. She wont offer anything visionary or controversial. She´ll look at polling numbers and talk about the mainstream topics of the democratic/central electorate. She´ll pick up anything thats well liked without being reckless. There will be little room to attack her (only progressives could hurt her, but they´ll be quite) and all big interest groups know, that she´ll play ball afterwards. On the other side it will be very easy to attack the GOP candidate.
Hillary´s only problem is, that she is slightly too elitist and sometimes she struggles to connect with common people. Still only a fairly charismatic populist could take advantage of this and even Rubio doesn't fit into this bracket.
In that way she reminds me of Angela Merkel who won all her elections precisely this way.
But the GOP can win it more easily than all those states, and the Dems have a multitude of ways to win without it. I agree she'll campaign hard there and hope for better support from white voters than Obama ever got in the hope of swinging it back their way, but she's reportedly going to be spending over $2bn so will probably also be campaigning hard in the likes of Indiana, Missouri and Arizona.
The money in campaigns is really getting out of hand. Only way around that is for Hillary to win, appoint a couple of liberal Justices and wait for the court to hear another case.
Herman Cain comeback? Was he ever really here to begin with? He was newsworthy for about 1 week or so?
I hope HRC uses Obama as much as he will allow for campaigning. He's still incredibly popular amongst dems and would do a good job for her. Gore made the mistake of not using Bill Clinton and it cost him.
Can't stand Clinton, too much baggage IMO.
Surely now time for a strong Republican?
Still the lesser of two evils.
Comeback time for Sarah Palin? There's no worse strategy for the Republicans than to run a man against Hillary and risk alienating as many as 51% of eligible voters.
A female presidential candidate is a watershed moment, there's nae doubt about that. Hillary can use her gender advantageously with little negative effect. A male opponent could not mention gender at all without looking sexist. Even an attempt to claim gender to be irrelevant could result in some uncomfortable situations for male opponents. Call me a chauvinist pig but I can't see many American chicks putting politics over the sisterhood of women once they're in that voting booth, especially if the alternative is a man. So, as charismatic populists go there are few better than Palin, the gun toting milf.
Her one thing seems to be her anti-China agenda, expect closer ties with Japan and India when she's president.
I certainly don't think you're a chauvinist pig but I'm equally very, very certain this is completely wrong.
"Game Change" covered this really well - women everywhere were turned off by how incredibly patronizing it was that the GOP ran a knucklehead with no qualifications beyond a vagina. Focus groups had women who sincerely believed Obama was a Muslim communist but put themselves as "undecided" because the opposite ticket had Palin.
Fair enough. Although vice presidents are virtually meaningless, imo. I chose Palin because the only other alternative I could think of was Ann Coulter, who's the only woman alive that would poll worse with women than a white man or Hillary Clinton so that's obviously a non-starter.
Still, if the Republicans don't run a woman directly against Hillary they'll lose. A female VP on their ticket would look patronizing. Hillary will bring in women voters to the Democrats along with progressives and young people just as Obama did. The Republicans could field a candidate of colour but that would only unite women more if you ask me (plus nobody believes there are black Republicans anyway) Women have been fighting for sexual equality longer than people fought for racial equality and America saw a black president before a female one. It's their time. One endorsement from Oprah and the race is over.
VPs can come in handy to dress up the credibility of the primary candidate. McCain obviously fecked up with Palin - he thought he would be Mavricky and pick an obscure woman, and would up getting burned. Obama did well with Biden, who ended up being a neutral, older foil for Obama's youth and inexperience. Same with Cheney and Bush. Hillary would do well to pick someone like Evan Bayh, who is a supporter of hers and neutral enough to get her some centrist votes. Jim Webb would help her as well, but I dont know how he gets on with the Clintons.
Sure, they can help fill out the ticket but other than being the backfill should your president die they aren't good for much else. I do find it odd that they seem to carry some importance to American voters.
Evan Bayh is barely a democrat.
And ?
And I hope he doesn't get picked.
Its not like he would be setting policy if she wins anyway. He's be a tidy, antiseptic supporter who does traditional VP stuff in the background.
Hillary will be 77 if she makes two full turns. The VP is one heartbeat away from running the country. That's what made McCain's pick so irresponsible and ruined his legacy forever.
I don't think voters care who the VP is unless they are utterly objectionable like Palin.
I can only speak for what I care about but if I vote for a ticket I want to vote for them to govern, not just win the election.
I disagree with your assessment. It’s hard to say if it’s an advantage or a disadvantage to be a woman in the next race. Yes, many women will vote for HC just because she is female, but many men will do exactly the opposite.
The Reps don’t have any decent female candidate. Nominating someone like Palin as their candidate would end the race before it even starts.
When I was talking about a “populist” I was talking about someone like Obama (before he got elected). Someone who plays the “Washington outsider” card; change; yes we can; grassroots approach; yada yada yada. Someone who is able to excite people, who are frustrated by politics. Only weirdos tick these boxes in the GOP.
The Democratic Party is fairly united at the moment, which diminishes the importance of the VP.
I’m surprised that our resident US-Americans seem to be so content with HC. I can understand why people support Obama (personally, I think that he is horrible). I can’t understand why anyone who has any interest in politics would support HC.
On the whole, women outnumber men in the US. That may be irrelevant with the electoral college votes, though. Still, you don't want to take the chance of alienating over half of eligible voters from the off. GOP men will vote GOP no matter who's running and you can probably say the same for Democrats. With a woman running for president, I don't think one can count on political allegiance trumping gender where the ladies are concerned. Remember that this will be a completely new scenario for party strategists to face.
While I generally agree with the reest of your post, do tell? Regarding the bolded bit.
I'm not asking purely out of personal curiosity, I think finding out why you feel that way about Obama would go a long way towards answering why you're surprised by the consensus on Hillary. For instance, are you annoyed by his continued usage of drones? His macroeconomic policies, his stance on Ukraine or ISIS? Because he's broadly reflective of his party base on most of those issues, and Clinton would largely be a continuation of those policies.
Not irrelevant at all, unmarried women are one of the key demographics of the Democrats these days. They make up around 20-25% of the electorate and the Dems win them by over 20 points, plus they turnout more than the blokes do.
I disagree with democrats on almost all policy issues and I know that Obama and Clinton represent the same ideas. That’s why I don´t like Obama.
Still Obama has at least some credibility that he actually means what he promises. Obviously he utterly failed to deliver on most of his campaign promises, but the healthcare reform (big thing), ARRA and a couple of other things are somewhat in line with his self-proclaimed ideals. He was able to deliver only so little because of political constraints, cooptation, systematic pressure, incompetence, fear, personal gain, pragmatism, limited power.
HC has no credibility at all, that she actually means what she says. When HC says, that she wants to be the champion for “everyday Americans”, it’s a blatant lie to get elected. She is part of a political class that primarily serve themselves. The average center-mid democrat should be disgusted by her. Actually any voter should repel her. Democrats often make fun of Reps for being too close to big business. They mock them because they have to kiss the asses of the Koch-brothers, S. Adelson, Wall Street and many more. Still HC is exactly like that.
To make an example: One of her very first promises is, that she´d support a campaign finance reform. Most of her voters support this idea. The question is how much credibility does she have to push for a substantial reform? She´ll collect a record high in hidden contributions – including the money from all big corporate interest groups; groups that have no interest in more transparency that limits their influence. That alone should make people skeptical, but she already has a track-record of changing her opinion after receiving money. Its wishful thinking that she´ll substantially change things.
Ironically one of the few areas where her image is in line with her politics is foreign policy. That’s not really a surprise so, because being hawkish is fairly popular with the mainstream voter and with the political elite.
She is the prototype of a politicians, who has no ideals at all and will do anything to stay in power. She´ll bend to political pressure on every subject, if it serves her. The problem is, that there are only very few issues where every-day Americans can pressure their government as efficient as big corporate interest groups. Her politics will fancy those interest groups disproportionately and I doubt that’s what the average voter really wants.
You're not giving much credit to the right. Have you not heard of groups like 'Chicks on the Right' and others of similar namesakes?
They'll carry the GOP bandwagon without giving rational thought as to what a female President represents.
I've not heard of the specific groups but I've considered that some women will follow their chosen party; however, I think those women will be few.
A female president is a really big deal. As it gets closer and closer to being a possible outcome of the US election women of all political stripes will have to seriously consider exactly what it means for the equality movement and I do think many will vote accordingly.
Huckabee will announce his candidacy!
He's a crook as well. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/mike-huckabee-pac-paid-his-family-almost-400000
He's a crook as well. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/mike-huckabee-pac-paid-his-family-almost-400000
Last edited:
Stumbled across this article. Reminds me of why I rarely debate with my Republican supporting friends. I recently became engaged in a hot political debate on my FB page. It got nasty with the red herring and other fallacious attacks from my opposition. Ultimately, I left the debate and for this person to have the "must have" last word. Ugh.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amira-young/the-bipartisan-marriage_b_1949190.html
The Bipartisan Marriage
Because I live in beautiful Southern California, there is often one thing about my ex that shocks people. No, it's not that he prefers Seattle weather, or that he's a preppy who listens to death metal. It's not even the fact that I married him (although my best friend thinks that did stun a lot of people). Nope, it's that he's a Republican and I'm not.
When I say Republican, I don't mean a "I'm conservative but I'm slightly centrist and willing to listen to other people's opinions" kind of guy. It's more of a "I'm going to worship at the temple of Fox News until I die a horrible death at the hands of Big Government and only listen to conservative talk radio and talk nasty about anyone who resembles anything near a hippie" Republican. So it was kind of scary.
People wondered about us: How could a nice liberal Jewish girl like me get with an uber-conservative? What did I see in him? How did we not kill each other?
Since he wasn't as involved in politics when we first got together, I felt our differences didn't matter. He wasn't dogmatic and seemed to enjoy healthy debate. After all, there were bipartisan couples in Washington, like Mary Matalin and James Carville. It was entirely possible for them to succeed. Relationships are more about common values and similar experiences.
But those couples in Washington are very different than the couple that I was a part of when I got married. As time went on, particularly as the 2008 election approached, my husband became more and more entranced by the Republican base. According to him, Barack Obama was the most horrible thing that happened to humankind and Sarah Palin was a gift from God and Alaska, and how dare anyone make fun of her.
As the years rolled on and we would talk about politics, the conversation became less of a civilized discourse and more of him becoming extremely angry and shouting the same talking points repeatedly as if he were Bill O'Reilly on a bender. I couldn't get a word in to argue the other side. If I did, I was attacked for buying into the "liberal bias." In his eyes, I was a brainwashed fool and didn't understand how reality worked. He enjoyed our political discussions, but every time we had them, I felt ashamed and berated.
My goal was to create a civilized home, and to that end, it became extremely important that I not engage him about politics, because that would cause me pain and make our lives more difficult. So I tuned out. For someone who's educated and loves debating and exploring issues, it was a hard thing to do. But I wanted to keep my marriage strong, so I made the sacrifice and watched "The Daily Show" on my computer as if I were a 13-year-old boy with his first copy of Playboy.
As the 2010 elections approached, there was almost nothing playing in our home except for Fox News; I had surrendered the television to him. He barely talked to me and spent all his disposable income on conservative books from his favorite radio hosts. Anytime we talked -- even just about the cost of groceries -- he brought up politics. I felt like I was witnessing a didactic cult of one person.
He would often use sweeping statements about a woman's place and how my beloved feminism was destroying families. I was an elitist for wanting an education higher than my bachelor's degree and feeling that academia is crucial to modern thought. And the idea of taxes for the rich, despite the fact we were flirting with the poverty line throughout our marriage? Well, I might as well have been draped in the flag of communist Russia.
Shortly before I left the marriage, my ex and I decided to take a trip to San Francisco, despite his grumblings about how it was a city of liberal decay. I was excited to be there and he seemed to be too as we drove out to Fisherman's Wharf. But then I saw it -- there were tents across the Embarcadero for the Occupy movement. I was a huge supporter and believed in what they were standing for, but to him they were evil. I knew the trouble that would occur if he noticed, so I played a game of, "Hey, look over there! There's a guy dressed like a fish!"
It was around this time that I realized I was done avoiding political landmines. There was nothing keeping us together anymore except bills and some shared floorspace. He was more into Sean Hannity than he was his own wife, and would rather spend time with him than making love to me. Needless to say, the marriage was over.
Looking back, it was not the Republican values that tore our marriage apart, as some of my closest friends are conservative and we have wonderful friendships. It was him -- his anger, his brainwashed attitude and his lack of respect for my opinions. It doesn't bode well for relationships, and we shouldn't be acting this way on either side of the aisle.
Would I date a Republican again? I'm not so sure, but I never say never. All I know is that I want a man who is educated in his beliefs and can stand up for them properly rather than a brainwashed boy who thinks that getting angry, calling names and repeating the same talking points is political discourse. And I'd like to have my television back so I can laugh at Jon Stewart openly.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amira-young/the-bipartisan-marriage_b_1949190.html
The Bipartisan Marriage
Because I live in beautiful Southern California, there is often one thing about my ex that shocks people. No, it's not that he prefers Seattle weather, or that he's a preppy who listens to death metal. It's not even the fact that I married him (although my best friend thinks that did stun a lot of people). Nope, it's that he's a Republican and I'm not.
When I say Republican, I don't mean a "I'm conservative but I'm slightly centrist and willing to listen to other people's opinions" kind of guy. It's more of a "I'm going to worship at the temple of Fox News until I die a horrible death at the hands of Big Government and only listen to conservative talk radio and talk nasty about anyone who resembles anything near a hippie" Republican. So it was kind of scary.
People wondered about us: How could a nice liberal Jewish girl like me get with an uber-conservative? What did I see in him? How did we not kill each other?
Since he wasn't as involved in politics when we first got together, I felt our differences didn't matter. He wasn't dogmatic and seemed to enjoy healthy debate. After all, there were bipartisan couples in Washington, like Mary Matalin and James Carville. It was entirely possible for them to succeed. Relationships are more about common values and similar experiences.
But those couples in Washington are very different than the couple that I was a part of when I got married. As time went on, particularly as the 2008 election approached, my husband became more and more entranced by the Republican base. According to him, Barack Obama was the most horrible thing that happened to humankind and Sarah Palin was a gift from God and Alaska, and how dare anyone make fun of her.
As the years rolled on and we would talk about politics, the conversation became less of a civilized discourse and more of him becoming extremely angry and shouting the same talking points repeatedly as if he were Bill O'Reilly on a bender. I couldn't get a word in to argue the other side. If I did, I was attacked for buying into the "liberal bias." In his eyes, I was a brainwashed fool and didn't understand how reality worked. He enjoyed our political discussions, but every time we had them, I felt ashamed and berated.
My goal was to create a civilized home, and to that end, it became extremely important that I not engage him about politics, because that would cause me pain and make our lives more difficult. So I tuned out. For someone who's educated and loves debating and exploring issues, it was a hard thing to do. But I wanted to keep my marriage strong, so I made the sacrifice and watched "The Daily Show" on my computer as if I were a 13-year-old boy with his first copy of Playboy.
As the 2010 elections approached, there was almost nothing playing in our home except for Fox News; I had surrendered the television to him. He barely talked to me and spent all his disposable income on conservative books from his favorite radio hosts. Anytime we talked -- even just about the cost of groceries -- he brought up politics. I felt like I was witnessing a didactic cult of one person.
He would often use sweeping statements about a woman's place and how my beloved feminism was destroying families. I was an elitist for wanting an education higher than my bachelor's degree and feeling that academia is crucial to modern thought. And the idea of taxes for the rich, despite the fact we were flirting with the poverty line throughout our marriage? Well, I might as well have been draped in the flag of communist Russia.
Shortly before I left the marriage, my ex and I decided to take a trip to San Francisco, despite his grumblings about how it was a city of liberal decay. I was excited to be there and he seemed to be too as we drove out to Fisherman's Wharf. But then I saw it -- there were tents across the Embarcadero for the Occupy movement. I was a huge supporter and believed in what they were standing for, but to him they were evil. I knew the trouble that would occur if he noticed, so I played a game of, "Hey, look over there! There's a guy dressed like a fish!"
It was around this time that I realized I was done avoiding political landmines. There was nothing keeping us together anymore except bills and some shared floorspace. He was more into Sean Hannity than he was his own wife, and would rather spend time with him than making love to me. Needless to say, the marriage was over.
Looking back, it was not the Republican values that tore our marriage apart, as some of my closest friends are conservative and we have wonderful friendships. It was him -- his anger, his brainwashed attitude and his lack of respect for my opinions. It doesn't bode well for relationships, and we shouldn't be acting this way on either side of the aisle.
Would I date a Republican again? I'm not so sure, but I never say never. All I know is that I want a man who is educated in his beliefs and can stand up for them properly rather than a brainwashed boy who thinks that getting angry, calling names and repeating the same talking points is political discourse. And I'd like to have my television back so I can laugh at Jon Stewart openly.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...-and-its-obamas-fault/ar-AAboZhG?ocid=DELLDHP
she should be happy..one would have thought...
she should be happy..one would have thought...
http://www.avclub.com/article/waka-flocka-flame-running-president-218339
@Locka
Without a doubt, presidential elections are the worst part of a democracy. Oh, sure, having to put up with an election is probably better than dealing with a leader who gets to be in charge simply because of who his dad is—something that almost never happens in America—but all of those debates, campaigns, and attack ads? They’re terrible.
But all of that is irrelevant, because Rolling Stone has announced the candidacy of someone who is making a serious run for the White House in 2016: rapper Waka Flocka Flame. See, his platform isn’t based on one silly issue, it’s based on a bunch of silly issues. That makes him just as viable as any of the “real” candidates, and maybe even a little more viable than some of the stupider “real” candidates. So what is Mr. Flocka Flame’s platform? For starters, he’s going to legalize marijuana, because that’s what every joke candidate says they’re going to do. Second, he’s going to ban all dogs from restaurants and stop people with big feet from being on the sidewalk. After that, he’ll force kids in school to learn the lyrics to his songs, and then he’ll raise the minimum wage “since In-N-Out Burger is doing it.”
@Locka
- Status