2016 Election

I burst out laughing when I saw this because
it's so true. This is the Dem ticket.

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

In the midst of all the turmoil the question that I keep asking myself is this.
The Reps have a large number of candidates seeking POTUS, at least half of which would probably be decent presidents. The Dems have a couple candidates. What happened here? Do the people in the know predict that it is just the Reps turn to win? There are some decent respectable people in the Dem party that would also 'probably' be at least decent presidents as well. Why have they not stepped forward? Was everyone just sure Hillary would be the candidate that couldn't be beat? Where the hell did that come from? Does anyone believe, I mean anyone, that she was appointed Secretary of State based on her foreign affairs acumen? Anyone?
Maybe the political elite take us all for fools, and maybe they are correct.
I am disappointed in the process so far.
I worry for my children.

I don't totally believe there is a group calling the shots and making winners. But I do believe a few things.

I do believe McCain was given push to throw the election. Horrible candidate, horrible campaign. At the debates he looked about as competent as Steve Lombardi did when he was in the ring. The GOP kind of believe they were going to lose so why even try? I believe this happens often in POTUS elections.

While the Democrat bench is thin, I do believe every decent Democrat was told "Hey, Bo, if you ever want to do anything in politics on our side again, you had better leave the field clear for Hillary. Capish?" Does anyone think that there are not a few Democrat governors who see her as weak as EB, myself, and a few others here have pointed out? Nobody has even tried to run against her.

You are right to worry for your children.

Yeah I don't understand why people are harping about her appearance. For woman Dem voters, they will vote for her because she is a woman and will overlook her other negative qualities. Her appearance will matter to men, but most will vote based on party lines vs how a candidate looks.

The election will be won and loss based on very narrow sections of demographics. Hispanics, Blacks, women, the young. Getting out the vote in your demographic is key to winning and losing states. There are a small percentage of swing voters as well who will make their decision based on the true quality of the candidate.

And in my opinion, Hillary is qualified for leadership - her time in the Senate and State gives her that, political views aside. Her looks and how she carries herself is important. Charisma is very important in the presidential race. And the truth is that Hilary is not trustworthy and not particularly "presidential". Most people these day do not trust politicians, especially long-term ones because it is well publicized and known that government is corrupt on both sides of the aisle.

The illusion that politicians are looking after the public interest is gone. Corporations have bought out congress and the senate a long time ago, producing policies that for the most part benefits them and leaves the average consumer (who doesn't own large swaths of stock) in the middle ground watching their middle class shrink away.

This leaves voters to vote for the best of two evils. The question for voters will be "who do you not trust the least?" I think that is why Trump is garnering interest. He's not a politician. Unfortunately his views are both alienating to two key demographics: woman and immigrants, both of which are required to win.

Quote: boymimbo

Unfortunately his views are both alienating to two key demographics: woman and immigrants, both of which are required to win.

Most of us look at the demographics and conclude the same as you boyminbo. But The hardcore, right-of-center republicans see it differently. They believe they just need a higher turnout of white men to win. They believe turnout of white men was down in 2008 and 2012, because conservative white men stayed home rather than vote for a moderate republican like McCain or Romney and if they put up a more conservative candidate (farther right), they will get those votes.

But the truth is they would need a white men turnout equal to when Ronald Reagan won to overcome the now larger Latino and Woman Votes. In other words they would need to equal the best turnout they have ever had among white men, a turnout achieved in a landslide victory, to now eek out the slimmest of majority.

That is not a sustainable position or path going forward. It's just a state of denial. And it is so weird because after the 2012 defeat the republican brain trust came together and issued what is called 'The Autopsy report' which said they needed to be more inclusive to Latinos, Women and Gays and when the time came to act on that they refuse to do it.

Quote: kewlj

Most of us look at the demographics and conclude the same as you boyminbo. But The hardcore, right-of-center republicans see it differently. They believe they just need a higher turnout of white men to win. They believe turnout of white men was down in 2008 and 2012, because conservative white men stayed home rather than vote for a moderate republican like McCain or Romney and if they put up a more conservative candidate (farther right), they will get those votes.

Actually, this is totally incorrect. Liberals love to yell DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, and think that is the end of it. It is not. Liberals assume hispanics and asians will block-vote same as blacks forever. This is doubtful.

And the liberal advice to the GOP is, "You had better get out there and be in favor of unlimited illegal immigration or you will lose forever!" Which is just advice to lose the country.

Quote:

And it is so weird because after the 2012 defeat the republican brain trust came together and issued what is called 'The Autopsy report' which said they needed to be more inclusive to Latinos, Women and Gays and when the time came to act on that they refuse to do it.

How is the GOP not inclusive to latinos, women, or even gays? The GOP is not inclusive to liberals, but that is about all. Perhaps you did not notice but the GOP has women, hispanics, and blacks running for POTUS but the Dem side is a bunch of "lilly-white" candidates.

Quote: AZDuffman

Actually, this is totally incorrect. Liberals love to yell DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, and think that is the end of it. It is not. Liberals assume hispanics and asians will block-vote same as blacks forever. This is doubtful.

And the liberal advice to the GOP is, "You had better get out there and be in favor of unlimited illegal immigration or you will lose forever!" Which is just advice to lose the country.



How is the GOP not inclusive to latinos, women, or even gays? The GOP is not inclusive to liberals, but that is about all. Perhaps you did not notice but the GOP has women, hispanics, and blacks running for POTUS but the Dem side is a bunch of "lilly-white" candidates.

I started to write it, but finished reading the other posts first.
AZD beat me to it, almost word for word.
I'm slow....
I would add, the GOP is inclusive to everyone once they reach a level of maturity that understands 'there aint no such thing as a free lunch'. Tanstaafl - Heinlein, before 1BB busts my chops..

This is the quandary with the right, and I am not saying they are wrong. The issue is that the values that the right-of-center republicans believe in is in the distinct minority. Whether that SHOULD be the case is a different discussion.

Because of the stark bipolarness of American politics, the far right need to shut up and attempt to get the votes it needs to win a general election. Then let your representatives to their work of pulling the party further off to the right and execute the agenda it needs to make the far right happy.

The unfortunate thing about all of this is that corporations win, always. The middle class will continue to recede under any administration until campaign reform takes place and limits to corporate influence occur. This is long overdue. Politicians needs to stop sucking at the teats of its corporate influencers and rely on limited campaign dollars from private individuals. This will make candidates more honest and will draw out non-career politicians to go for office. Congress and Senate might actually listen to their constituents. We can start with Pharmaceuticals and Insurance companies first, the Monsantos and big farming next. We can go after big farms next and stop our reliance on corn and move back to sustainable farming. Then Oil. A pushback on corporate influence would go along way to curb voter apathy and restore some faith in government.

The libertarian argument will be to avoid any government at all, but of course, they pick and choose which government is good - "armed forces = Good, Social Security = Good, MediCare = Good, Roads and Sewers - Good, Fire and Police - Good" and which is bad: "ObamaCare = Bad, Teachers = Bad, any sort of public worker union = Bad, any sort of environmental cause = Bad".

Okay I've said too much. But I've been away for a while. Now, I'm the bleeder in an ocean of sharks. Have at it, fishies!!!

Quote: AZDuffman

How is the GOP not inclusive to latinos, women, or even gays? The GOP is not inclusive to liberals, but that is about all. Perhaps you did not notice but the GOP has women, hispanics, and blacks running for POTUS but the Dem side is a bunch of "lilly-white" candidates.

If you feel the GOP has been inclusive to Latinos, women and gays.....well I just don't know what to tell you, Duffman. You are looking through a different spectrum than I and I doubt anything I say will change that.

I will speak from the gay aspect, which as a gay man, I know a little something about. Probably half of the gay population, especially the older generation, which is the group more likely to vote, has conservative values on many issues. Many have their own businesses and want nothing more to raise a family with their partner.

Many of these people are a much closer fit to republican values, but now have been turned off forever because of the republican effort to deny marriage benefits. And for what? The notion that someone else's relationship in any way reflects or harms your own is ludicrous. No one is saying you or any republican needs to change religious beliefs. If you feel homosexuality is a sin, so be it. There is supposed to be separation of church and state. But the far rights insistence that religious views be incorporated into government, excludes the majority of people, who may share what should be government related conservative values.

I'll tell you, in my own case, this issue was front and center for most of my adult life, which is why I aligned myself with democrats. In June, I figured this issue was put to bed and I could now embrace issues lean more conservative and at least consider if not embrace republicans. In this very early part of the election cycle, I find myself interested in more republican candidates than democratic candidates. But, now in recent weeks it looks as if the republicans want to re-fight this fight that they have already lost and continue to be the exclusive private club that they have become. This may end up driving me right back to the democrats instead of looking for a candidate that better matches all my values.

I can't speak for Latinos, but I find it very unlikely that republican positions of wanting to break up their families, including children who are by law US citizens, the same as you and I, is going to make many of these folks feel welcome. And frankly, it appears to me, that most Latinos are hard working religious people of traditional values and a better fit for the republican party.

I mean, come on....inclusive? Who are you lying to, me or yourself?

Come on.

Clearly, the GOP and especially the Christian/Tea Party right within the GOP is anti-gay. You and several other posters have been criticizing the gay marriage movement since I've been on here. The GOP policy on immigration is also strongly against immigrants at this current time. 1st generation immigrants (and there are a lot of them) will favor amnesty over any other program that will require a hurdle for them or their family members to gain citizenship. That alone will block most of these people (there are exceptions) from voting GOP. And women? Reproductive rights and wage parity are a big deal to them, and far-right reversing of decisions in states around right-to-life are important to some of these voters -- these voters themselves may be pro-lifers themselves but they have a strong belief that women should be able to make their own decisions around the fate of what's growing inside of them, just on principle alone.

All GOP candidates unfortunately have to play cards that appease both the center Republicans (those whose votes are required to win) and the far right (those who will vote GOP anyway). Democrats can then grab on to these bites of hard right rhetoric to sway those thinking about voting GOP away from that decision.

I think the ideal GOP candidate's play is to ignore the far right entirely. They will vote for him anyway over Hillary as you know that the GOP candidate's view have got to be to the right of Hillary. The closer the GOP stays in the center the better their chances will be to win. And then you let those righter leaning politicians in the Congress and Senate to push their agenda.

Quote: boymimbo

This is the quandary with the right, and I am not saying they are wrong. The issue is that the values that the right-of-center republicans believe in is in the distinct minority. Whether that SHOULD be the case is a different discussion.

Sadly, right-of-center is always going to be the minority. It is easy to be on the left, all you have to do is keep saying "yes" and adding more handouts. If you are on the right you have to be the SOB who says. "we can't afford it!" or "NO!" to requests. Another way to put it is how they relate to kids. Liberal parents are far more likely to be the parents saying, "I want to be my kid's friend!" while conservative ones say, "no, my job is to be a PARENT, not a friend!"

Quote:

Because of the stark bipolarness of American politics, the far right need to shut up and attempt to get the votes it needs to win a general election. Then let your representatives to their work of pulling the party further off to the right and execute the agenda it needs to make the far right happy.

But the right actually has been winning elections. Statehouses, governorships, and Congress. Up and down the line. Obama won re-election with fewer votes and a narrower margin than he won the first time, that is unheard of at POTUS level. And for liberals should be cause for alarm as it means they convinced net-nobody of their ideas/positions.

Quote:

The unfortunate thing about all of this is that corporations win, always. The middle class will continue to recede under any administration until campaign reform takes place and limits to corporate influence occur. This is long overdue. Politicians needs to stop sucking at the teats of its corporate influencers and rely on limited campaign dollars from private individuals. This will make candidates more honest and will draw out non-career politicians to go for office. Congress and Senate might actually listen to their constituents.

I would rather a system of unlimited contributions as long as they were all declared. Requiring small contributions actually makes it harder for "the little guy" as so much time has to be consumed raising money from a larger number of people. I don't see it with "non-career politicians" getting into things. Politics is some sort of weird club for attention-whores who like to talk but not do.

Quote:

Okay I've said too much. But I've been away for a while.

Welcome back, BTW. Hope you like the new paint job on the walls here.