American Politics

Status
Not open for further replies.
In my heart, I hope the effwits go full-on Tea Party and the country votes them into oblivion.

But with crap like Indiana and Arkansas going on, I'm starting to fear that America is so full of right wing morons that the medieval god-botherers might even win.
 
Ubik said:
I'd agree with Eboue, considering that even Santorum managed to gather a head of steam last time round and Perry was expected to had he not been so painstakingly awful, you'd expect Cruz to do a fair bit better. Plus people like Hannity will think it immediately solves all their problems with Hispanic voters.
Click to expand...

Santorum had a good start but imploded quickly. Same with Herman Cain. In the end, the least Conservative of the lot got the nomination. That will probably happen again with Jeb this time.
 
Raoul said:
Santorum had a good start but imploded quickly. Same with Herman Cain. In the end, the least Conservative of the lot got the nomination. That will probably happen again with Jeb this time.
Click to expand...
Nah the good ol' Santorum surge happened at the end when all the other conservatives had been nixed, but yeah I agree about Jeb in general, I was just supporting what Eboue said about Cruz being a genuine candidate rather than a joke we can write off. One of the problems for the right last time round was that they couldn't settle on a candidate, it went from Bachmann to Perry to Gingrich to Cain to Santorum (or something like that anyway), which isn't going to get any of them enough delegates. If it's Cruz from the off to the end this time round he has a better chance.
 
Ubik said:
Nah the good ol' Santorum surge happened at the end when all the other conservatives had been nixed, but yeah I agree about Jeb in general, I was just supporting what Eboue said about Cruz being a genuine candidate rather than a joke we can write off. One of the problems for the right last time round was that they couldn't settle on a candidate, it went from Bachmann to Perry to Gingrich to Cain to Santorum (or something like that anyway), which isn't going to get any of them enough delegates. If it's Cruz from the off to the end this time round he has a better chance.
Click to expand...

He's no more a genuine candidate than Perry was last time. He will probably lead the pack of right wingers but won't have nearly enough steam to win over the establishment wing of the party, which is where all the money is.
 
Ramshock said:
Yep good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Not much of a point there, Ram.

Anyone who completely rules out Bush, or Hillary for that matter, as the next potus just isn't paying attention. They're not the only two, but there's no question that the two are the leading contenders for their party's nomination. It could be Warren for the Dems and Cruz for the Reps, but at this either seems a highly unlikely outcome.

Whether either is desirable as potus is a completely different question. The question before us at the moment who might sit in the big chair, not who should.
 
I'd say it could be Paul, Bush, Rubio, or Walker for the GOP. They would have enough establishment backing to where if they did well in the primaries, would get the financial backing to proceed, whereas someone like Cruz or any other random right wing nutter would likely not get the same sort of establishment enthusiasm to win a general election.

As for the Dems, its Hillary all the way. There's no Obama type who could derail her, especially with Warren threatening to go insurgent over wall street banks shying away from her. There's so much establishment support of Hillary this time that it will be nearly impossible to derail her.
 
Gannicus said:
Not much of a point there, Ram.

Anyone who completely rules out Bush, or Hillary for that matter, as the next potus just isn't paying attention. They're not the only two, but there's no question that the two are the leading contenders for their party's nomination. It could be Warren for the Dems and Cruz for the Reps, but at this either seems a highly unlikely outcome.

Whether either is desirable as potus is a completely different question. The question before us at the moment who might sit in the big chair, not who should.
Click to expand...

Yup
 
I wonder how Hillary would fare as POTUS. Imagine the GOP's furor that for the second time in a row, the voting public pick the first (insert) POTUS. It was the first non-white in 2008 (and reelected in 2012) and may be the first woman in 2016. Will the GOP thwart her much like they did Obama just because she's not one of them?

And who is the odds on favorite to be her VP pick? The party could use a young, rock-star VP going into 2020 (if Hillary's health fades or she flat out sucks) but more likely 2024. The DNC need to be working on plans to ensure the WH for the next 8-16 years.
 
Bracketology, according to CalBuzz

http://www.calbuzz.com/2015/03/e-gop-presidential-field/

Walker
Bush
Paul
Rubio

Gotta love the "photo" of Rick Santorum, currently ranked #12!


Paddy Power has its own rankings, indicating right now a Clinton v Bush general election. You can get a 6 to 5 payout if you place on Hillary and 4 to 1 if you place your bet on Jeb. Rep primary odds on Jeb are 2/1, while Walker is at 4/1.

The Iowa Electronic Market is worth checking out:

https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Pres16_Quotes.html

Short of cataclysmic catastrophe, Hillary will sail through to her coronation as the Dem nominee. The Reps have only two candidates have a chance of beating Hillary, Jeb and Marco. The rest already have a fork in their back, if not through their head. But Jeb (or Marco) will get pulled to the right in the primaries. As others have pointed out in recent posts, getting pulled to the right puts key states such as Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina -- three states that are essential to any Republican winning map -- at risk. One can fairly assume that Jeb or Marco would put Florida in the bag with only a minimal amount of work. Ohio is manageable for a "right-center" candidate, but Virginia and North Carolina are pulling further to the left with every election cycle.

The task for Jeb and Marco, the only two plausible Rep candidates, is whether either can win the Rep nomination while at the same time redefining conservatism away from its nativist, intolerant (ie, the newly minted Indiana law) moorings. It may, or it may not, be possible.
 
Eboue said:
The guy went to Harvard Law School. I don't think it will be too difficult for him to project an intellectual image when he's up against Huckabee or Walker. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he will get the nomination and he obviously isn't a top tier candidate but I think he can do some damage.
Click to expand...

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...tart-hes-too-extreme-and-too-disliked-to-win/

I just read this article. It explains fairly convincing why Cruz hasnt a snowball´s chance in hell to win the nomination and why nobody will be willing to pick him as VP.
 
PedroMendez said:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...tart-hes-too-extreme-and-too-disliked-to-win/

I just read this article. It explains fairly convincing why Cruz hasnt a snowball´s chance in hell to win the nomination and why nobody will be willing to pick him as VP.
Click to expand...

That's great and all but I never argued that Cruz will win the nomination. (Though it is worth pointing out that the person next to Cruz on that chart is Barry Goldwater, who DID win the nomination and served as the canary in the coal mine for the modern Republican Party.)

The fact is that the republicans have nominated a centrist (by their standards) the last two times and lost there is a not insignificant amount of them who fear it will happen again. They likely don't have the pull to nominate a culture warrior at the top of the ticket, but they will need to be placated. When Jeb Bush or Koch Industries Presents Scott Walker gets the nomination, the base will want one of their own in a high place. If not as VP then promised some other important role.

I think Cruz is battling for that red meat spot against Huckabee and his ilk and I think Cruz is far better equipped to fight that battle and come out on top. He's very smart and a highly skilled debater. He will wipe the floor with Ben Carson or Bobby Jindal. And that "one of us" position is there. If you have doubts, recall the antipathy for Romney allowing even Cain and Santorum to gain steam.
 
Eboue said:
That's great and all but I never argued that Cruz will win the nomination. (Though it is worth pointing out that the person next to Cruz on that chart is Barry Goldwater, who DID win the nomination and served as the canary in the coal mine for the modern Republican Party.)

The fact is that the republicans have nominated a centrist (by their standards) the last two times and lost there is a not insignificant amount of them who fear it will happen again. They likely don't have the pull to nominate a culture warrior at the top of the ticket, but they will need to be placated. When Jeb Bush or Koch Industries Presents Scott Walker gets the nomination, the base will want one of their own in a high place. If not as VP then promised some other important role.

I think Cruz is battling for that red meat spot against Huckabee and his ilk and I think Cruz is far better equipped to fight that battle and come out on top. He's very smart and a highly skilled debater. He will wipe the floor with Ben Carson or Bobby Jindal. And that "one of us" position is there. If you have doubts, recall the antipathy for Romney allowing even Cain and Santorum to gain steam.
Click to expand...

Their last two candidates didn't lose because they were centrist Republicans. They lost because they were up against one of the better campaigners in recent history alongside considerable issue based demographic shifts on things like gay rights, immigration etc. The right wing of the party still believes they lost because they didn't run a "real conservative", but they are certainly not going to win by running Cruz. Their only chance is through Jeb Bush or maybe Marco Rubio running a centrist campaign with pragmatic positions on gay rights, immigration, etc. Otherwise they could lose by 100 electoral votes or more, like the last two did.
 
Raoul said:
Their last two candidates didn't lose because they were centrist Republicans. They lost because they were up against one of the better campaigners in recent history alongside considerable issue based demographic shifts on things like gay rights, immigration etc. The right wing of the party still believes they lost because they didn't run a "real conservative", but they are certainly not going to win by running Cruz. Their only chance is through Jeb Bush or maybe Marco Rubio running a centrist campaign with pragmatic positions on gay rights, immigration, etc. Otherwise they could lose by 100 electoral votes or more, like the last two did.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, you and I know that but I don't think the people who are willing to vote for Cain in the first place are likely to be running regression analyses in the past 4 years to see where it went wrong.
 
I think what may happen is Walker, Paul, and Rubio (if he runs) will position themselves as conservative options between centrists like Bush, Christie, Fiorina, and Cruz, Perry, Carson, Jindal, and Santorum on the right wing side.
 
fishfingers15 said:
It would be interesting if E Warren is chosen as the running mate for Hilary.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I think it would hurt rather than help Hillary. Less males would vote for them, which would hinder election day results for the Dems. Hillary and Jim Webb would be a pretty good ticket. They would probably win Virginia and make the path to 270 extremely difficult for the GOP ticket.
 
Raoul said:
Sadly, I think it would hurt rather than help Hillary. Less males would vote for them, which would hinder election day results for the Dems. Hillary and Jim Webb would be a pretty good ticket. They would probably win Virginia and make the path to 270 extremely difficult for the GOP ticket.
Click to expand...

Surely males turned off by an all female ticket would have been turned off by a ticket with a woman as the presidential candidate?

I love Warren, but I feel she would be neutered as a VP.
 
Raoul said:
Sadly, I think it would hurt rather than help Hillary. Less males would vote for them, which would hinder election day results for the Dems. Hillary and Jim Webb would be a pretty good ticket. They would probably win Virginia and make the path to 270 extremely difficult for the GOP ticket.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure two ladies running will have that much of an impact, and if there's a chance that both can wing it, it's this election riding the Hilary wave and the lack of credible GOP candidates. The problem may rise from donors and MNC's that will be concerned by Warren's antagonistic approach towards Wall Street. I like Warren personally and she'll be a great personality. It may just be a lot of talk and no substance too.
 
adexkola said:
Surely males turned off by an all female ticket would have been turned off by a ticket with a woman as the presidential candidate?

I love Warren, but I feel she would be neutered as a VP.
Click to expand...

She would be a bit too rambunctious for Hillary in terms of policy any way. I think males would prefer a balanced ticket, which is why i suggested Webb. Warren would only hurt Hillary's chances since the opposition would paint them as more liberal than Hillary actually is and wind up fundraising very well against them.
 
fishfingers15 said:
I'm not sure two ladies running will have that much of an impact, and if there's a chance that both can wing it, it's this election riding the Hilary wave and the lack of credible GOP candidates. The problem may rise from donors and MNC's that will be concerned by Warren's antagonistic approach towards Wall Street. I like Warren personally and she'll be a great personality. It may just be a lot of talk and no substance too.
Click to expand...

She will be good during the primaries and probably make Hillary talk more about the issues Warren is interested in. Can't see her getting any more traction beyond the primaries though. Reminds me a bit of Jerry Brown in 92.
 
Raoul said:
She will be good during the primaries and probably make Hillary talk more about the issues Warren is interested in. Can't see her getting any more traction beyond the primaries though. Reminds me a bit of Jerry Brown in 92.
Click to expand...

I'm not old enough to remember Jerry Brown, but I see your point. I'm not convinced about Webb, but he's better than Pelosi.
 
fishfingers15 said:
I'm not old enough to remember Jerry Brown, but I see your point. I'm not convinced about Webb, but he's better than Pelosi.
Click to expand...

Webb is a former Republican turned Dem and would give her a lot of centrist credibility, which will ultimately help her in the general election. The GOP will almost certainly try to paint Hillary as yet another tax and spend liberal who is tainted by scandals from Whitewater to Benghazi to email gate. Having Webb there will make the ticket seem much more centrist, which is where most of the votes are.
 
Raoul said:
Webb is a former Republican turned Dem and would give her a lot of centrist credibility, which will ultimately help her in the general election. The GOP will almost certainly try to paint Hillary as yet another tax and spend liberal who is tainted by scandals from Whitewater to Benghazi to email gate. Having Webb there will make the ticket seem much more centrist, which is where most of the votes are.
Click to expand...

You must know better than me, my interest in US Politics is very recent (considering I've lived here only for 7 years and was never intent on settling for good), but the general mood in the country is that the independents (or the centrists??) are exasperated with divide and rule politics. Obviously, you'll have the hardcore right always willing to believe Benghazi and what not, but they will vote for the Repubs anyway. My take is that the independents are there to be won over not just by appearing like a moderate, but by actually having good and forthright policies. I could be completely wrong though.
 
Hillary won't pick Elizabeth, full stop and end of. But her veep choice is an interesting question she might as well start thinking about now.

Bear with me.

She won't go with another Beltway insider, such as Schumer. She'll want to go with a governor, but not a governor from an eastern seaboard state. Probably someone who supports "gun rights" but is not a gun rights freak.

O'Malley is making the play for veep, but he doesn't tick the right boxes. Cuomo is a possibility, but a remote possiblity -- two New Yorkers makes no sense; and in any event Andrew Cuomo is a very sharp dude and he won't want to be on board for the inevitable Hillary trainwreck. McAuliff is too tied to the Clintons, which puts him on the maybe list but in the end no chance. Inslee could be an interesting option -- you can't get too much farther from Washington DC than the State of Washington -- and he's done by all accounts a great job.

The man who ticks many of the right boxes from a purely Hillary-win point of view is Steve Bullock. But he just got elected in 2013, Montana is a small state and he's little known outside of Montana. However, veeps often get plucked out of nowhere, or at least it's not that unusual. And what Hillary needs is a 1) man 2) a centrist-moderate 3) has no Washington DC stain 4) has no nasty background surprises and 5) has executive experience. She needs someone who can calm moderate Democratic men down about the prospect of a Hillary Clinton administration. But it won't be enough.

In reality, veeps help only at the tiniest of margins. Hillary win will or lose based on whether her campaign. She will need a credible pick for veep but not someone who presents any risk of stealing her thunder the way Palin stole McCain's thunder. Hillary will not tolerate anything other than a plain vanilla running mate who can be counted on not to make any mistakes or in any way put her at risk.
 
The only quality for Hillary´s VP is, that he doesnt feck up. Someone like Warren is completely out of question. Too controversial. She´ll pick someone boring, but reliable. Maybe someone who can help in a swing-state, but that's not even necessary.
 
I think the perfect VP for Hillary would be Julian Castro. Latino, youngish, handsome, smart Stanford graduate, ex big city mayor and current Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Great speaker and very likeable. Reminds me a lot of a Barack Obama. For me this would be a no brainer, and definitely a future presidential candidate. Would be brilliant to have a qualified progressive center-left African American, Woman, then Latino president in the US. By then hopefully this old white entitled, southern influenced douchebag republican party will have been killed off and a viable republican opposition party created without all the tea party doucheness.
 
PedroMendez said:
The only quality for Hillary´s VP is, that he doesnt feck up. Someone like Warren is completely out of question. Too controversial. She´ll pick someone boring, but reliable. Maybe someone who can help in a swing-state, but that's not even necessary.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'd agree, it's not going to be something that swings the election. They just have to be careful to avoid what happened to McCain, where due to his age the choice of Palin looked reckless in the extreme. Heartbeat away from the Presidency and all that.
 
Nobby style said:
I think the perfect VP for Hillary would be Julian Castro. Latino, youngish, handsome, smart Stanford graduate, ex big city mayor and current Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Great speaker and very likeable. Reminds me a lot of a Barack Obama. For me this would be a no brainer, and definitely a future presidential candidate. Would be brilliant to have a qualified progressive center-left African American, Woman, then Latino president in the US. By then hopefully this old white entitled, southern influenced douchebag republican party will have been killed off and a viable republican opposition party created without all the tea party doucheness.
Click to expand...

Except that he doesn't have any experience at the national level, which would make him a prime target for the opposition. She doesn't really need to choose a latino running mate to get the spanish speaking vote; simply having an anti-immigration Republican opponent will be sufficient for her to get a massive hispanic turnout.
 
The more I think about it, the more it seems Rubio would be able to beat Hillary. He would take a good chunk of the hispanic vote in swing states, which would doom her. Trouble for him is he may not be able to get the nomination over Bush.
 
Raoul said:
The more I think about it, the more it seems Rubio would be able to beat Hillary. He would take a good chunk of the hispanic vote in swing states, which would doom her. Trouble for him is he may not be able to get the nomination over Bush.
Click to expand...
I don't think he'd take anywhere near enough, and Hillary would probably increase the female vote to the Dems as well, who were also a key part of Obama's coalition of voters.
 
Ubik said:
I don't think he'd take anywhere near enough, and Hillary would probably increase the female vote to the Dems as well, who were also a key part of Obama's coalition of voters.
Click to expand...

He would certainly get significantly more than any other GOP candidate, especially if he softens up on immigration. In some swing states like Colorado, Virginia, NC, etc it would only take a 2-3% swing to win the state. As is stands, VA and NC are traditionally republican states which may go back to the GOP this year after Obama did better than expected. NM and NV are also going to be in play for the same reasons.
 
Raoul said:
He would certainly get significantly more than any other GOP candidate, especially if he softens up on immigration. In some swing states like Colorado, Virginia, NC, etc it would only take a 2-3% swing to win the state. As is stands, VA and NC are traditionally republican states which may go back to the GOP this year after Obama did better than expected. NM and NV are also going to be in play for the same reasons.
Click to expand...
North Carolina went back in 2012, and both there and in VA the biggest minority by quite a way are African-Americans, who are still going to be solidly Democrat. Plus, if somehow they did manage to run the board on the more highly Hispanic populated states of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico (this one I don't find likely at all), Florida and Virginia, they still need one of Ohio, Iowa or New Hampshire to turn red which Rubio's ethnicity and immigration platform alone isn't going to help, and they're also where Hillary will be playing to her strengths.
 
Ubik said:
North Carolina went back in 2012, and both there and in VA the biggest minority by quite a way are African-Americans, who are still going to be solidly Democrat. Plus, if somehow they did manage to run the board on the more highly Hispanic populated states of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico (this one I don't find likely at all), Florida and Virginia, they still need one of Ohio, Iowa or New Hampshire to turn red which Rubio's ethnicity and immigration platform alone isn't going to help, and they're also where Hillary will be playing to her strengths.
Click to expand...

New Mexico would be interesting given how hispanic it is. Rubio would certainly threaten the Dem stranglehold there. Bush won it in 2004 and a hispanic GOP candidate would certainly be able to do the same today. I think Rubio would win every state Bush won in 2004 except Virginia, which would be enough to win the Presidency. As implausible as it sounds, he would give Hillary the same sort of headaches Obama did in 08, in that he's young, dynamic, a great talker, and a shrewd campaigner who would siphon off a lot of hispanic votes from the Dems. As usual, it will come down to a small handful of states.

That said, I'm not sure Rubio would be able to get enough GOP establishment backing over Bush to win the nomination.
 
Raoul said:
New Mexico would be interesting given how hispanic it is. Rubio would certainly threaten the Dem stranglehold there. Bush won it in 2004 and a hispanic GOP candidate would certainly be able to do the same today. I think Rubio would win every state Bush won in 2004 except Virginia, which would be enough to win the Presidency. As implausible as it sounds, he would give Hillary the same sort of headaches Obama did in 08, in that he's young, dynamic, a great talker, and a shrewd campaigner who would siphon off a lot of hispanic votes from the Dems. As usual, it will come down to a small handful of states.

That said, I'm not sure Rubio would be able to get enough GOP establishment backing over Bush to win the nomination.
Click to expand...
I just don't see him being that kind of transformative candidate, he's your generic right-wing republican that's an anti-gay, anti-abortion climate change denier that happens to have Cuban heritage.

If you look at this short report on 2012 - http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/11/07/latino-voters-in-the-2012-election/ - even if Rubio could get up to the high of the last 35 years that was Bush losing by a mere 18 points in '04 (and Rubio would need to increase the vote share from 2012 by over 50% to do that), they still face the rather large problem that the demographics themselves have changed considerably since that election, with the Hispanic vote having almost doubled in Nevada and Colorado, and increased from 32 to 37% in New Mexico (which Bush won by less than 1% in 2004). They'd need to be close to parity in vote share with the Democrats to run the board as they require, and I'm not sure Latino voters will vote based on racial loyalty alone whilst ignoring their historical animosity from the Republican party in order to do that. I'd be confident of them winning Florida and that's about it.
 
Ubik said:
I just don't see him being that kind of transformative candidate, he's your generic right-wing republican that's an anti-gay, anti-abortion climate change denier that happens to have Cuban heritage.

If you look at this short report on 2012 - http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/11/07/latino-voters-in-the-2012-election/ - even if Rubio could get up to the high of the last 35 years that was Bush losing by a mere 18 points in '04 (and Rubio would need to increase the vote share from 2012 by over 50% to do that), they still face the rather large problem that the demographics themselves have changed considerably since that election, with the Hispanic vote having almost doubled in Nevada and Colorado, and increased from 32 to 37% in New Mexico (which Bush won by less than 1% in 2004). They'd need to be close to parity in vote share with the Democrats to run the board as they require, and I'm not sure Latino voters will vote based on racial loyalty alone whilst ignoring their historical animosity from the Republican party in order to do that. I'd be confident of them winning Florida and that's about it.
Click to expand...

I think Rubio will have an unusual crossover appeal in that he's young, moderately photogenic, and fluent in Spanish, which if he gets the nomination will blast through previous GOP best numbers with hispanic audiences. Hillary would not be able to counter Rubio's ads where he talks directly to voters in Spanish. She would again risk being in the same situation with Obama - an older, languid establishment candidate up against a spritely, younger, well spoken upstart. This is probably why Hillary matches up better against Bush or Walker, than Rubio.
 
Raoul said:
I think Rubio will have an unusual crossover appeal in that he's young, moderately photogenic, and fluent in Spanish, which if he gets the nomination will blast through previous GOP best numbers with hispanic audiences. Hillary would not be able to counter Rubio's ads where he talks directly to voters in Spanish. She would again risk being in the same situation with Obama - an older, languid establishment candidate up against a spritely, younger, well spoken upstart. This is probably why Hillary matches up better against Bush or Walker, than Rubio.
Click to expand...

Raoul, you scare me with your insights on American politics. That is to say, your insights are spot on.

If the Dems can't have Cruz or Paul (or some other wingnut stooge) are the Rep nominee, they'll take Bush over Rubio. Bush could still beat her, but he'll have to deal with the headwinds of his last name and latent tea party disaffection. Rubio, on the other hand, can energize voters across the conservative to centrist segment of the ideological spectrum while picking up a piece of the Latino vote in states like North Carolina, New Mexico and even Virginia.

But can Rubio navigate the Rep primaries?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.