Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Helgoland]

We would always discuss things on the basis on full information for one thing.

Hah! Try to verify that in the europol thread!

[Sheb]

Well, weather in Europe over the last year was  "Fog of war", the situations don't compare.

[FearfulJesuit]

This thread has been dormant for over two weeks. Here's some more delicious speculation on 2016 from WaPo.


Speaking of which...this thread is about a year and a half old, and the midterms are going to be in a month. Do we want to lay its 600 pages to rest when the midterms finish and boot up a new thread? Seems fitting to clear out the American politics threads every two years, just like Congress.

(In theory. *sad laugh*)

[mainiac]

Might as well point out that republicans are probably going to hold the senate after the election: http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/senate-forecast/

The democrats are polling about as well as they could have hoped for but it's just a matter of the democrats already holding all the swing states this election so it's inevitable they'll be the ones losing seats.

It's kinda weird how the Senate plays out with regards to the Founders Intent.  It doesn't act so much as a cooling off mechanism in this regard as a delay.  Because people were pissed at democrats in 2010, Democrats dont lose the Senate in 2010 or 2012 but in 2014.  And in 2016 democrats are likely to regain the Senate majority as the Republican gains of 2010 are up for grabs. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/2016_Senate_election_map.svg/959px-2016_Senate_election_map.svg.png).

[Karlito]

The Senate hasn't worked the way the Founders intended for over one hundred years.

[FearfulJesuit]

Yeah, I think the midterms are pretty clear. The Republicans will keep the House and probably retake the Senate, and if they don't, the Democrats will have a small and precarious majority. We'll be in for two more years of gridlock.

The good news is, in 2016 the demographics favor the Democrats, and all those Tea Party senators who got elected in 2010 will be up for re-election. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if a Republican won the presidential election, especially if Hillary loses the Democratic primary- there's been plenty of pent-up resentment towards the Obama Administration and I don't think you can really blame people for wanting a bit of a change- but it would have to be someone like Christie or Rubio who could position himself as a moderate Republican. (It would be nice if someone like Susan Collins ran, but it won't happen and she wouldn't last two minutes in the primaries). The last years of the Obama administration are going to be more disappointment, but I think we've all come to terms with that by now.

Also, mainiac, what on earth are the black states on that map? Oklahoma, for example, has two Republican senators, and the Democrats won't be the dominant party out here until Hell freezes over. (Though there's some idle speculation that the Democratic candidate for Governor might win next month because there's been so much resentment against the current governor. Even so, he's an Oklahoma Democrat- fairly conservative, though not insane.)

[Dutchling]

Is Clinton still the #1 Democrat candidate?

[FearfulJesuit]

The general feeling among a lot of pundits is that if Clinton runs- and pretty much everyone knows she will- she's going to win the primary and then almost certainly the general election.

There's always room for an upset, though. If Biden decides to give the primary a go, things will become much more heated since vice president is not a position to be dismissed lightly. Plenty of Democrats don't like Hillary very much and would be happy to support another candidate if they thought someone else had a chance of winning the primary. Furthermore, Hillary isn't exactly a spring chicken- if she wins the 2016 election, she'll be sixty-nine upon taking office- as old as Reagan was in 1980. If, for whatever reason, she loses in 2016, her political career is over. (This might be tied to the fact that she's a woman- I don't think a man of the same age would give people as much pause, which is just silly, since women live longer than men do and stay sharper. But it's what it is.)

Other possibilities include Elizabeth Warren, darling of the Democrats' left, who- unfortunately- is very good at projecting an image of "liberal dingbat" everywhere but New England. She'd win against Santorum, maybe, but not against Christie or Rubio. Martin O'Malley, governor of Maryland, has also been discussed as a possibility, though I don't know much about him. I know RedKing has been betting on Brian Schweitzer of Montana as the dark horse.

There are some other possibilities, but they'll come out of the woodwork starting early next year, if they do. The candidate pool is fairly small, I think, because most potential candidates regard it as a fool's errand to try and stage an upset against Hillary. But hey, things happen- who'd heard of Barack Obama in early 2007?

[mainiac]

Also, mainiac, what on earth are the black states on that map? Oklahoma, for example, has two Republican senators, and the Democrats won't be the dominant party out here until Hell freezes over.

I believe that is a special election will be held before 2016.  In Oklahoma the current incumbent is resigning.

The general feeling among a lot of pundits is that if Clinton runs- and pretty much everyone knows she will- she's going to win the primary and then almost certainly the general election.

I don't think Clinton has even decided if she is going to run yet.  She's less of a sure thing then in 2008 IMHO.

[FearfulJesuit]

Also, mainiac, what on earth are the black states on that map? Oklahoma, for example, has two Republican senators, and the Democrats won't be the dominant party out here until Hell freezes over.

I believe that is a special election will be held before 2016.  In Oklahoma the current incumbent is resigning.

Oh right...I can't remember when that is, though.

The general feeling among a lot of pundits is that if Clinton runs- and pretty much everyone knows she will- she's going to win the primary and then almost certainly the general election.

I don't think Clinton has even decided if she is going to run yet.  She's less of a sure thing then in 2008 IMHO.

It's all but a given that she will, isn't it? I mean, she's been cagey, but that's just good manners with a presidential run.

[smjjames]

Also, mainiac, what on earth are the black states on that map? Oklahoma, for example, has two Republican senators, and the Democrats won't be the dominant party out here until Hell freezes over.

I believe that is a special election will be held before 2016.  In Oklahoma the current incumbent is resigning.

The general feeling among a lot of pundits is that if Clinton runs- and pretty much everyone knows she will- she's going to win the primary and then almost certainly the general election.

I don't think Clinton has even decided if she is going to run yet.  She's less of a sure thing then in 2008 IMHO.

Didn't the senator for Hawaii die a while back? might have been last year. Don't know what's with South Carolina on that map.

And no, Hillary hasn't officially decided whether or not to run yet. While I don't think she is neccesarily in danger of getting Alzheimers, since my grandma died from complications related to it, I'm just somewhat more aware of it. I have nothing against a woman president, it's just that it's believed that Regan actually had alzheimers in the later part of his presidency, so, yeah, it's just a concern.

Honestly though, as much credentials and experience as Hillary has, I'd rather see what else the democrats have to offer, not like she is the only good option that they have.

Comments on http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/10/02/the-2016-presidential-race-and-the-coming-death-struggle-within-the-gop/ (lol'd at the death struggle bit.)

Jeb Bush? No, just no, we've had enough of the Bush family, I don't care how cool he is or how smart he is.

Ted Cruz? The same guy who wanted to shut down the government and force a default? I suppose we could so that the republicans get hated for the next 20-40 years, but no way with that kind of illogicality.

Either way, the prospects for the republicans don't seem great.

[Frumple]

Speaking as a floridian, Jeb was a piece of shit. Did a dandy job of helping to fuck over portions of the state, education in particular -- teachers hated the slag, from my interactions with 'em. That particular bastard gets elected, it'd be time to see about moving to canada or somethin'. Governor was bad enough.

[smjjames]

Speaking as a floridian, Jeb was a piece of shit. Did a dandy job of helping to fuck over portions of the state, education in particular -- teachers hated the slag, from my interactions with 'em. That particular bastard gets elected, it'd be time to see about moving to canada or somethin'. Governor was bad enough.

Was he on the same level of stupid as George W. Bush was?

[penguinofhonor]

Clinton vs Bush would be a hell of an election, though.

[Frumple]

Was he on the same level of stupid as George W. Bush was?

Eh... not really? Different kind of terrible. Not so much "same level" as "different but equal level". Just curtailed by the smaller scale.