2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Jul 18, 2015 7:19 am UTC

Thesh wrote:I'm just looking at the polls. Yes, I do believe he is gaining ground. He has risen in popularity with assholes, which is a sizable portion of Republicans. Do I think it will hold? No, but all he has to do is stay in the news acting like a douchebag and he will be in the top five.

Those republicans are both in the minority of voters, and more importantly in the minority of party leaders. If you don't have endorsements, then you don't matter. Or worse, you're an other who must be defeated.
Djehutynakht wrote:Can you imagine how embarrassing it must be to be a Republican primary candidate losing a coveted debate spot to Donald Trump?

I'd be livid.
I dunno about that, how many candidates have been excluded that are viable by Trump?

User avatar
Paul in Saudi
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:52 pm UTC
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Paul in Saudi » Sat Jul 18, 2015 12:18 pm UTC

I can't vote for Hilary, she is just too old. We learned that from Reagan.
I can't vote for Bush. I can't get over the Terry Shivo case.
I will vote for Trump in the Pennsylvania closed primary, just to make trouble. I can't vote for him in the general election.
I could vote for Sanders.
I can't vote for Walker because of his anti-union stance.
I can't vote for Crus because he is from Texas.
I could vote for Biden, although he is too pro-police for my taste.
I can't vote for O'Malley because he is much too pro-police and ruined Baltimore.
I can't vote for Huckabee. I like a religious candidate, but he is right-wing Christian and I am left-wing Christian.
I can't vote for Santorum. Although he is the best speaker of the bunch, he says the worst things.
I can't vote for Christie. I used to like him, and I would have voted for him if the election was held in 2014, but his gruff wears on you after a while.
I can't vote for Perry. He is from Texas.
I won't vote for Jindal. I don't respect a man so obviously running for Veep.

User avatar
Sizik
Posts: 1260
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sizik » Sat Jul 18, 2015 2:21 pm UTC

Paul in Saudi wrote:I can't vote for Hilary, she is just too old. We learned that from Reagan.
...
I could vote for Sanders.
...
I could vote for Biden, although he is too pro-police for my taste.


Biden and Sanders are both ~5 years older than Hillary, and they're both older than Reagan was when he was elected.
she/they
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Jul 18, 2015 3:33 pm UTC

Weren't people actually right about Reagan being too old? Or were the rumors of his mental decline in the 2nd term merely slander?

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Sat Jul 18, 2015 7:47 pm UTC

Trump attacks McCain, earns ire.

Appearing on Saturday at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, the real estate mogul took his running feud with Arizona Sen. John McCain to a new level.

“He’s not a war hero,” said Trump. “He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”



Insulting veterans for their service, especially Prisoner of War, is something that generally earns pretty universal condemnation in American politics.

I doubt this will go well for Trump. This might be the final straw, although considering everything up to this point, I'm not sure even this will be enough to banish him.

What I find most hilarious is that he immediately denied saying it directly after speaking.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby jestingrabbit » Sat Jul 18, 2015 8:44 pm UTC

Perhaps he's, you know, drunk, permanently, like, all the time. That could explain things.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:44 pm UTC

Paul in Saudi wrote:I can't vote for Hilary, she is just too old. We learned that from Reagan.
I can't vote for Bush. I can't get over the Terry Shivo case.
I will vote for Trump in the Pennsylvania closed primary, just to make trouble. I can't vote for him in the general election.
I could vote for Sanders.
I can't vote for Walker because of his anti-union stance.
I can't vote for Crus because he is from Texas.
I could vote for Biden, although he is too pro-police for my taste.
I can't vote for O'Malley because he is much too pro-police and ruined Baltimore.
I can't vote for Huckabee. I like a religious candidate, but he is right-wing Christian and I am left-wing Christian.
I can't vote for Santorum. Although he is the best speaker of the bunch, he says the worst things.
I can't vote for Christie. I used to like him, and I would have voted for him if the election was held in 2014, but his gruff wears on you after a while.
I can't vote for Perry. He is from Texas.
I won't vote for Jindal. I don't respect a man so obviously running for Veep.


Ignoring that Hills is younger than the people you could vote for...

I can't vote for Hilary, enough with the relatives of politicians already
I can't vote for Bush, because that's Hillary's problem amplified
I can't vote for Trump, because he's beyond awful
I could vote for Sanders, but would prefer someone that was a bit less anti-science
I can't vote for Walker because he's vehemently anti-union
I can't vote for Cruz because he is an utter douche
I can't vote for Biden, because he's basically Obama with less appeal.
I could vote for O'Malley, honestly he's the best Democrat available
I can't vote for Huckabee, because he's a Dominionist
I can't vote for Santorum, because he's also a Dominionist
I could vote for Christie, but he's not that great
I can't vote for Perry, because he pushes Creationism (and might also be a Dominionist)
I can't vote for Jindal, because he too pushes Creationism
I could vote for Pataki, but he has a snowball's chance in hell
I can't vote for the Ronpaul, because dammit he's another religious whackjob and we have too many of those in politics

In order, Pataki, O'Malley, Sanders, Christie. Anyone else doesn't clear the threshhold of awful.

dg61
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby dg61 » Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:49 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Weren't people actually right about Reagan being too old? Or were the rumors of his mental decline in the 2nd term merely slander?


It's hard to say; some people think that signs of his illness started then and some studies have suggested that he started exhibiting very subtle symptoms-not casually obvious ones but the kind that you can sort of spot if you know what to look for-late in his 2nd term. It's all a bit tricky partly because dementia can be hard to spot early if you're used to normal slowing and because if he's the president he'd have a large staff covering for basic stuff(also because most or at least a lot of his presidential archives are still sealed I think so it might be on the order of 15 or so years until all the documents from his presidency are declassified). A lot of the controversy also arose around Iran-Contra and his faffing around about whether or not he was aware of things, leading to "is he actually forgetting all this stuff that he's not sure about or is he covering his ass". But yea, I think it's somewhat unlikely that anyone as old as Reagan would get elected these days barring massive improvements in medicine. Especially since the presidency is such a stressful job that it has noticeably aged many much younger holders of the office(look at how much Obama's hair has turned gray!).

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Vahir » Sun Jul 19, 2015 12:25 am UTC

Wait, wait, wait, you guys are actually seeing Chris Christie as a legitimate candidate?

Maybe it's because I've been indoctrinated by Jon Stewart, but I seem to recall that he's a horrible candidate all around, vetoing a bill against animal abuse to please the people of a completely different state, and utterly bungling the suit against Exxon, getting a mere 3% of what New Jersey could have gotten.

User avatar
Paul in Saudi
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:52 pm UTC
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Paul in Saudi » Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:20 am UTC

Sizik wrote: Biden and Sanders are both ~5 years older than Hillary, and they're both older than Reagan was when he was elected.



I did not know that and I thank you. I think Biden has a painting in the attic that ages for him.

I seem to recall reading somewhere (how's that for a cite?) that RR never really recovered from the shooting early in his first term. Even as he was in office his slow-wittedness was the subject of jest and speculation. It would be odd indeed if his dementia waiting until he left office to strike.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:34 am UTC

I could work with Biden. He's a generally nice guy, and I haven't seen a stance of his that I'm particularly against.

One thing I think he has going for him is a long Senate career. He knows how to negotiate, and frankly I think that's a considerable skill amongst the current partisan gridlock. I get good vibes from him... though I should look up his stances, to be honest.

I'm not entirely confident that he'll actually run, though. Of course it's entirely possible. But he has the age thing... and he'd have to run against Hillary Clinton... and frankly I think the safe thing for him would be to retire gracefully as Vice President and party elder instead of throwing himself into the fray again.

But I'd be happy to see him run.

JoshuaZ
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JoshuaZ » Sun Jul 19, 2015 8:25 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:And yet, still ahead in the polls.


How likely do you think he is to get the nomination? Can you make a probability estimate?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sun Jul 19, 2015 8:33 pm UTC

It's impossible to say at this point. We have to wait until we see who drops out. There is no strong candidate, so it's possible for him to win iff there is enough vote splitting.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Isaac Hill
Systems Analyst????
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Middletown, RI

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Isaac Hill » Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:21 pm UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:Trump attacks McCain, earns ire.

Appearing on Saturday at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, the real estate mogul took his running feud with Arizona Sen. John McCain to a new level.

“He’s not a war hero,” said Trump. “He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”



Insulting veterans for their service, especially Prisoner of War, is something that generally earns pretty universal condemnation in American politics.

I doubt this will go well for Trump. This might be the final straw, although considering everything up to this point, I'm not sure even this will be enough to banish him.

What I find most hilarious is that he immediately denied saying it directly after speaking.
Maybe Trump has no desire to actually be President, and is just running for shits and giggles, or some "Brewster's Millions" type situation. But, he's doing well enough in the polls that he might win the nomination, so he said something to tank his popularity.
Alleged "poems"
that don't follow a rhyme scheme
are not poetry

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:00 am UTC

Is it possible for the national Republican Party to deny him the nomination, even if he technically gets the requisite votes?

On one hand, the obvious answer seems no. But in the old days the parties didn't even do primaries. Their inner echelons just picked nominees. Perhaps there's something obscure in the rules. I'm not sure. But I guess it would be suicidal to do if he actually won their base.
___________

Perhaps we'll get a Floor Battle at the Republican Convention. That I would enjoy.

User avatar
Isaac Hill
Systems Analyst????
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Middletown, RI

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Isaac Hill » Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:13 am UTC

Djehutynakht - One possibility would be "faithless delegates", where one candidate wins a delegate in a primary or caucus, but the person serving as that delegate votes for another candidate at the convention. Enough of those could swing the nomination from one candidate to another. I don't know what rules govern those, though. It might not be suicidal if Trump wins his delegates early in the process, then does something awful enough to make his voters regret their choice.
Last edited by Isaac Hill on Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:46 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Alleged "poems"
that don't follow a rhyme scheme
are not poetry

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby jestingrabbit » Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:31 am UTC

Isaac Hill wrote:or some "Brewster's Millions" type situation.

matches up well with your avatar.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 20, 2015 5:32 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Weren't people actually right about Reagan being too old? Or were the rumors of his mental decline in the 2nd term merely slander?


Yes and no. Sure, age takes a toll, and it seems likely that alzheimers had at least some effect while he was still in office. But, he did finish out his terms in a reasonably successful manner. I suppose it's fair to consider the office of VP a little more critically if you suspect the president may have to step down due to age or health.

But, on the flip side, average lifespan keeps creeping up. So, it's fair to consider somewhat older candidates now than in decades past.

And, I think it's a rather minor point. Maybe something to consider between very similar candidates, but it seems unlikely to be a more important criteria than platform issues. Most folks would rather have "their" oldster than a young fellow supporting the wrong side, whatever that is.

CorruptUser wrote:In order, Pataki, O'Malley, Sanders, Christie. Anyone else doesn't clear the threshhold of awful.


O'Malley is awful, I assure you. He's from MD. MD doesn't want him as a candidate. Not even the democrats(though the republicans have the usual hatred for him as well). He's simply so irrelevant in terms of publicity that this hasn't really mattered yet. There's a bunch of folks that, while technically candidates, simply don't have the polling/airtime/popularity to really be viable.

I look forward to Trump's failure, because it lets a little more air into the room for others, personally. Good, bad, at least we get to hear more about them after we get done with the stupid back and forth bs.

Vahir wrote:Wait, wait, wait, you guys are actually seeing Chris Christie as a legitimate candidate?

Maybe it's because I've been indoctrinated by Jon Stewart, but I seem to recall that he's a horrible candidate all around, vetoing a bill against animal abuse to please the people of a completely different state, and utterly bungling the suit against Exxon, getting a mere 3% of what New Jersey could have gotten.


My issue with him is more that he's...well, a typical Jersey politican. I feel fairly confident that he'll cheerfully say/do whatever is advantageous at the moment, regardless of previous promises and so forth. In short, he does not appear reliable or trustworthy as a candidate, even if you like the stances he claims to promote.

For instance, he claims to be pro-gun, but he doesn't actually own a gun, and if memory serves, hasn't really supported the NRA in the past, and has shown a willingness to adopt other positions. And, he hasn't really accomplished a great deal that of legislation, etc that would actually be considered pro-gun. So, what does "pro-gun" actually mean from him? You need to at least portray a fairly convincing image of loyalty to why people are voting you in, whatever that is.

Biden, at least, is a nice fellow. Even if you don't happen to agree with him, he's a hard man to hate. He seems very genuine, and to be earnestly trying to help. That counts for a fair bit, IMO. The dems could do much worse than to grab him.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jul 20, 2015 8:32 pm UTC

AFAIK, his main drawback is that he was "tough on crime". But really, I don't think we have a good crop of politicians this time around. Or last time. Or the time before, or before that. Honestly? I voted for McCain in 2008, and Obama in 2012, and I disliked Obama more in 2012 than in 2008, to give you an idea of just how awful the Republicans are getting. Each year, the Republicans get only worse. "Oh wow, people aren't voting for out religious nutjobs; they solution is make them even nuttier and more religious!". Seriously, what the hell. I can't stand the Democrats, and I'm voting for left wing moderate Republicans like Pataki or Christie in the hopes that the rest of the Republicans wake up and say "hey, maybe if we stop making such a stink about abortion and gay rights and mandating Christianity everywhere, and instead be the party of supporting small businesses and professionals over big businesses and bureaucracy, maybe people will vote for us again?" But if the Republicans put up another friggen Dominionist, I'll vote Democrat.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 20, 2015 8:55 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:AFAIK, his main drawback is that he was "tough on crime". But really, I don't think we have a good crop of politicians this time around. Or last time. Or the time before, or before that. Honestly? I voted for McCain in 2008, and Obama in 2012, and I disliked Obama more in 2012 than in 2008, to give you an idea of just how awful the Republicans are getting. Each year, the Republicans get only worse. "Oh wow, people aren't voting for out religious nutjobs; they solution is make them even nuttier and more religious!". Seriously, what the hell. I can't stand the Democrats, and I'm voting for left wing moderate Republicans like Pataki or Christie in the hopes that the rest of the Republicans wake up and say "hey, maybe if we stop making such a stink about abortion and gay rights and mandating Christianity everywhere, and instead be the party of supporting small businesses and professionals over big businesses and bureaucracy, maybe people will vote for us again?" But if the Republicans put up another friggen Dominionist, I'll vote Democrat.


Yeah, I been just tossing presidential votes third party last coupla times around. Couldn't get really enthused about either of the main candidates, and MD is such a foregone conclusion I feel no impulse to choose the lesser of two evils. Or, more accurately, the lesser of two disappointments.

I feel like I could get a decent republican candidate if I could pick and choose different bits from different ones...but yeah, Santorum or something would be a HUGE disappointment. It's as if they can't stop hitting the social issues buttons that make the libertarians/moderates shy away from them. Maybe good for rallying the base, I dunno, but seriously, stop beating the dead horses.

The "tough on crime" bit well, that's, unfortunately, a lot of folks. Buncha folks jumped on the broken windows bandwagoning. In the case of Baltimore, this probably contributed to the criminal/police adversarial relationship that's definitely still alive and well, but that's...probably not even his worst issue. More important is all the stuff he didn't do. Mental health was mostly ignored, and that system in MD is broken as hell. Despite his focus on it, crime really isn't that much better. You could easily argue that many of the benefits of broken window policing were not caused by the policies themselves, but demographic changes, etc that would have happened anyways. He's also just kind of an asshole who says stupid and/or offensive things. Sort of like the equivalent of Trump. A little less bold, though. I've personally seen him sprint away from folks who were shouting inconvenient questions at him. Fortunately, he doesn't have the reach Trump has. But, O'Malley vs Trump would be kind of a horror show, if you wanted to speculate about terrible matchups. It'd be long, long months of overt hostility and naked partisanship. On the flip side, the resulting disgust might actually be what's necessary to get a third party president.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:53 am UTC

US presidential candidate Donald Trump has given out the mobile phone number of Senator Lindsey Graham - one of his Republican rivals for the White House.

At a campaign rally, he called the South Carolina senator an "idiot" and then told the crowd to try the number.

A Politico reporter called the number on Tuesday, and Mr Graham answered.

...

Recent national polls show Mr Trump with a double-digit lead over his closest Republican rival.

Democracy - truly the worst system of government apart from all the others

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:03 am UTC

I'm not sure what "Democracy" has to do with the US government.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Trebla
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Trebla » Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:27 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I can't stand the Democrats, and I'm voting for left wing moderate Republicans like Pataki or Christie in the hopes that the rest of the Republicans wake up and say "hey, maybe if we stop making such a stink about abortion and gay rights and mandating Christianity everywhere, and instead be the party of supporting small businesses and professionals over big businesses and bureaucracy, maybe people will vote for us again?" But if the Republicans put up another friggen Dominionist, I'll vote Democrat.


This seems EXTREMELY sensible to me and I feel crazy for thinking that this seems so obvious... and I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone in the media or political sphere (as portrayed by the media) even suggest anything similar. (Some) Republicans have great economic track records, but they sink themselves because personal freedom issues are simply more important to so many people.

In my mid-30s, I (regrettably?) admit I've ignored politics most of my life from disgust at the process in general, but is the US system so completely broken that it's simply impossible for a socially liberal (but conservative in all other aspects) candidate to get the Republican nomination? I need to go back to ignoring politics.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:31 pm UTC

Trebla wrote:In my mid-30s, I (regrettably?) admit I've ignored politics most of my life from disgust at the process in general, but is the US system so completely broken that it's simply impossible for a socially liberal (but conservative in all other aspects) candidate to get the Republican nomination? I need to go back to ignoring politics.


Unfortunately, the republican process is...very conservative. They tend to give the nod to the next vanilla old guy in line. Neither McCain or Romney were particularly bold choices. On the bright side, this means that folks like Trump tend to get ignored, but the downside to this is we'll probably get another Bush. They like the "safe" choice.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:51 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Unfortunately, the republican process is...very conservative. They tend to give the nod to the next vanilla old guy in line. Neither McCain or Romney were particularly bold choices. On the bright side, this means that folks like Trump tend to get ignored, but the downside to this is we'll probably get another Bush. They like the "safe" choice.


It seems to me like this trend is reversing, honestly.

If anything, it looks like that description fits the Democrats more than the Republicans. Hillary Clinton has basically been assumed heir presumptive for almost 8 years. There's some resistance to this (mostly Bernie Sanders--and he's not even a Democrat), but it seems to stand that the Democratic choice is locked up with all but that one exception.

The Republican Field is way more wide open, and seems to have a lot more of a wide range of diversity going for it. It's true that ultimately they may end up with a safe choice, like Jeb. But that's the definition of a safe choice--they're more likely. In any case, another Bush for the Republicans currently stands less likely than another Clinton for the Democrats.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:19 pm UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Unfortunately, the republican process is...very conservative. They tend to give the nod to the next vanilla old guy in line. Neither McCain or Romney were particularly bold choices. On the bright side, this means that folks like Trump tend to get ignored, but the downside to this is we'll probably get another Bush. They like the "safe" choice.


It seems to me like this trend is reversing, honestly.

If anything, it looks like that description fits the Democrats more than the Republicans. Hillary Clinton has basically been assumed heir presumptive for almost 8 years. There's some resistance to this (mostly Bernie Sanders--and he's not even a Democrat), but it seems to stand that the Democratic choice is locked up with all but that one exception.

The Republican Field is way more wide open, and seems to have a lot more of a wide range of diversity going for it. It's true that ultimately they may end up with a safe choice, like Jeb. But that's the definition of a safe choice--they're more likely. In any case, another Bush for the Republicans currently stands less likely than another Clinton for the Democrats.


Most trends are cyclical, and the two parties are something of mirrors of each other, so yeah...you can find instances of it in both. However, Obama was definitely an edgier, less staid choice than either McCain or Romney. So yeah, the dems seem to be swinging towards safety and tradition, while the republicans are maybe a bit hungrier right now.

Another Clinton does seem particularly likely. Sanders is, if a nice fellow in general, and livelier, perhaps too far from the mainstream. I think he'd make for an interesting run, but I confess I don't care to vote for him myself, based purely on issues. And I'm fairly moderate, so that probably doesn't bode well for his appeal to swing voters.

However, Bush having lower odds is probably mostly a depth of field issue more than anything else. He's still the heir apparent, they just happen to have a much greater number of options for a variety of reasons(for one, having much better control than the dems in terms of state houses).

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Sun Jul 26, 2015 2:43 am UTC

Dennis Rodman endorses Trump for President.

It just keeps getting better.

Donald then went on to say that Rodman was either drunk or on drugs.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 27, 2015 2:18 pm UTC

Trump may not be a great leader. Or even a good leader. But he'll have interesting speeches, for sure.

Plus, probable boom in US alcohol sector as we try to cope.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jul 27, 2015 7:49 pm UTC

He has experience when it comes to being bankrupt and somehow screwing the lenders instead while he he gets rich and laughs. That makes him perfect for the job President.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Jul 27, 2015 11:17 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:He has experience when it comes to being bankrupt and somehow screwing the lenders instead while he he gets rich and laughs. That makes him perfect for the job President.
wouldn't the best president just be another president? They have the most experience on how to leverage executive power
New presidents are too reliant on Congress

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Tue Jul 28, 2015 1:38 am UTC

sardia wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:He has experience when it comes to being bankrupt and somehow screwing the lenders instead while he he gets rich and laughs. That makes him perfect for the job President.
wouldn't the best president just be another president? They have the most experience on how to leverage executive power
New presidents are too reliant on Congress



Carter 2016

(Hey, he's constitutionally eligible)

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby jestingrabbit » Tue Jul 28, 2015 7:26 am UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:Carter 2016

(Hey, he's constitutionally eligible)


And that's his slogan, parentheses and all.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby leady » Tue Jul 28, 2015 10:30 am UTC

I think you folks should go for an American with true foreign political knowledge & experience of running one of the biggest cities in the world

Boris Johnson 2016

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mathmannix » Tue Jul 28, 2015 12:28 pm UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:
sardia wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:He has experience when it comes to being bankrupt and somehow screwing the lenders instead while he he gets rich and laughs. That makes him perfect for the job President.
wouldn't the best president just be another president? They have the most experience on how to leverage executive power
New presidents are too reliant on Congress



Carter 2016

(Hey, he's constitutionally eligible)

So is George H.W. Bush. (He's a few months older. And a much better President than Carter.)
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:49 pm UTC

Be greedy for HW to go again before all his relatives have had a try.

Let's go for 100 years of only Clintons and Bushes in the WH!

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Jul 28, 2015 5:53 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:And a much better President than Carter.

How so?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mathmannix » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:34 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
mathmannix wrote:And a much better President than Carter.

How so?

Well, leaving aside my own personal opinions, looking at the Wikipedia article Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States, Bush (Sr.) beats Carter 10 polls to 3, with a significant aggregate difference of 5 places. Although in the Siena survey father down, Carter does win in a few categories, most notably Court Appointments (which I find somewhat irrelevant, as Carter didn't get to make any Supreme Court appointments, and nobody really remembers appellate judges) and Integrity (which I agree with). Leadership ability and foreign policy, on the other hand, are a good deal of a president's legacy.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

iamspen
Posts: 487
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby iamspen » Wed Jul 29, 2015 4:25 pm UTC

Carter is underestimated. After all, he didn't allow the US to become embroiled in a war in the Middle East or Eastern Europe, despite every reason to do so. I'm not ready to anoint him as Patron Saint of the American Presidency or anything, but I do think his perceived failures are more likely him being a victim of circumstance (and highly vindictive Iranians).

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:30 pm UTC

I'm somewhat of two minds about Carter, personally. On one hand, he was right about pretty much everything. On the other hand, he could struggle to successfully translate that into action. Now, that certainly wasn't always his fault, but it is an important trait in a successful presidency.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:16 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:Carter is underestimated. After all, he didn't allow the US to become embroiled in a war in the Middle East or Eastern Europe, despite every reason to do so. I'm not ready to anoint him as Patron Saint of the American Presidency or anything, but I do think his perceived failures are more likely him being a victim of circumstance (and highly vindictive Iranians).


He pretty much let the Iranian Revolution happen. Yeah no, that was a disaster.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests