Larry Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Republicans are taking control of Congress. Coincidence sure, but the economy always does worse under Republican leadership at least in my lifetime. Reagan, Bush, Bush II, even majorities tilt it down. I would say that it's pretty clear that they increase the deficit. (Something to do with increasing military spending, while cutting taxes on corporations and the rich, and then acting surprised when the deficit goes up, might be a factor.) I'm not at all sure that I'd say that the economy gets worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZRagone Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 So a few thoughts on this.... First and foremost, EVERYTHING anyone says right now needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Everything. It's fun to prognosticate and strategize, but so much of what will really decide this election are 2 years away. Second, some theories on what can impact thing. To start, I'll address one issue (the economy) that had some back and forth going on earlier in this thread with a very basic notion, Reality doesn't matter in an election, perception does. Let's ignore for a moment that with the glory of (lies, damn lies, and) statistics one can look at the majority of economic factors in this country and spin it in a convincing way to make an argument that it is good/bad. Let's say indisputably, every economic measure you can think of is positive. If the average voter doesn't personally feel that is the case, if they don't PERCIEVE that to be reality, then it doesn't matter. The "reality" in that case would not overrule the "perception". In a sense, that's sort of what we saw here in 2014. Democratic leaning individuals point to a lot of different statistics or interpretations of economic factors, with their own subjective criteria and context, and claim economically things are going well. However, the average voter in 2014 PERCIEVED the country to be in a bad spot economically. The Democrats did a horrendous job of actually being persuasive in their argument that the economy of the country is doing well, and thus the perception that conflicted with what they saw as "reality" won the day. So regardless of whether or not the economy truly is doing better by 2016, one of the things that will be important in that election is whether or not people PERCEIVE it to be better. And, if they don't perceive it as such, can the Democrats do a good job of persuading people that their perception is wrong? On the flip side, if it's perceived as being GOOD, then the question is can the Republicans do a good job of persuading people that it's due to the change in congressional leadership. Another impact that is WAY too far out to see, is how both sides are going to A) work with/against each other in the next two years and how they spin that. We've already begun to see indication that we're more likely to see the political equivalent of two rams butting each other for dominance as opposed to something more akin to what we saw in 1994. So unless something changes, we probably have our answer with regards to A. So that brings us to B. How are they going to spin it. The Democrats have tried for 6 years now to paint the Republicans as obstructionists and the "party of 'no", to questionable electoral success. In that process, they also clearly took a stand that seemingly being obstructionist or a "party of 'no'" was a BAD thing. Now they're in a situation where they will be faced with the decision to filibuster often or not, or Obama will be faced with whether or not to say "no" from the executive with a veto. How the Democrats handle that, and how both sides spin that, will be interesting to see. How the Republicans actually govern, what they try to pass, what they successfully get to the Presidents desk, etc will have an impact as well. But most likely, without a crystal ball, we probably have no clue what things are going to have the biggest impact for the electorate. Third, onto who gets the nomination. And one note, when I talk about how good of a candidate is here, I'm speaking in terms of their chance at getting a nomination, not necessarily suggesting that any particular voter would view them as "good". With the Democrats, I think it's realistically at this point a 3 person race with the potential for a few more to pop in but likely not do much (though its not out of the question for a dark horse to rise up). Hillary, Biden, and Warren are probably your three best right now, with Hillary being probably the best out of either party right now. At the moment, it definitely looks like it'll be an establishment vs base fight between Hillary and Warren. Biden, or perhaps a dark horse like Tim Kaine, may serve as a "third way" but right now it doesn't look likely. Things can definitely change though. For the Republicans, it's a big jumble. I don't think there's any truly STRONG candidate to run away with the nomination, in part because they have a pretty deep bench of above average to good candidates from a variety of the various rings under the three ring circus of the big tent. None of them are seemingly great candidates, but there's a number of solid potential there. There are four (at times overlapping) segments of the republican base right now. Establishment, Grass Roots, Libertarian, and Social. In the past few years there's been a clear establishment favorite, a clear libertarian favorite, and then a host of others splitting the social and grassroots votes up. Not surprisingly, that usually resulted in the two singular focused favorites lasting late into the race (establishment and libertarian), with one candidate finally taking control of the grassroot and social group but after it's far too late. This time there's the potential for that to go awry. If Mitt actually jumps back in, I think you could see a split in the establishment/moderate support between him, Jeb, and potentially Christie (who's a bit of a wild card). I think Mitt and Jeb are both heavyweights at this point, and can possibly have a similar drag on their success as what we saw with some of the more grass roots candidates in the previous years. What I think is interesting for the Republicans is the large host of potential Governors that can be drawn from. Unlike the Democrats, it wouldn't shock me at all if someone who's not getting a majority of the attention right now gets the nomination. Walker, Pence, Portman, Kasich, perhaps even Haley (the later of which I don't think has a good shot at the top of the ticket, but would be a remarkable pick for a VP slot). I think Rand does better than his father, and has a better shot than his father did as I believe he can bring a few more of the mainstream grass root conservatives over to him rather than just the libertarian types. IF he can actually become the Grass Roots guy, and not just the libertarian republicans guy, then he may be formidable. Otherwise, he may end up being Jeb/Mitt/Christie's best friend, providing an even bigger drain at the end to whoever winds up on top of the "grassroots" and "social" group. 2016 feels like a 2008 all over again for the Democrats...a primary that feels like it's likely to be a two person race, once again with Hillary Clinton going up against a darling of the base. Meanwhile, a Republican primary feels a bit like a mashup of 2008 and 2012, without a clear leader but with someone who feels like going in is meant to be the "eventual" guy, but with a lot of interesting figures making their push. Admittedly, leaning more to the right myself, I'm naturally predisposed to being more interested in the Republicans. But I just really think that the Republican primary, and all the different scenarios possible with it, is going to be really enjoyable to watch for a political junky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZRagone Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Republicans are taking control of Congress. Coincidence sure, but the economy always does worse under Republican leadership at least in my lifetime. Reagan, Bush, Bush II, even majorities tilt it down. I looked at this on another forum recently and it was really interesting. I'll have to go back and see if I can find the exact info, but from memory I think it goes like this... Over the past 30 odd years, the deficit has more often than not increased during a Republican Presidents tenure and decreased during Democratic Presidents tenures. On the flip side. Over the same time span, the deficit has generally decreased during periods of full Republican controll of Congress and increased during full Democratic controll of congress. When the congress is split it's a coin flip (I believe once it increased, once it decreased). This goes back to my comment about the wonders and joys of (lies, damn lies, and) statistics. This is the glory of Politics: spin baby, spin. It's why there's big money jobs for this kind of thing, entire think tankers and websites dedicated to its endevour, and wonderful degrees built off this game. Someone on the left could say "the economy gets worse under Republican leadership" and technically, they could be right based on the context, criteria, time span, and method of measurement that they're deciding to use to come to said conclussion. At the exact same time, someone on the right oculd say "the economy getes worse under Democratic leadership" and technically, they could ALSO be right based on the context, criteria, time span, and method of measurement that THEY'RE deciding to use. For myself, when I did that research and saw that, it made me smile because it reaffirmed my...admittedly entirely gut feeling baesd...opinion on what is generally the "realistic ideal" setup for our country. That of a pragmatic moderate Democratic President with a staunchly fiscally conservative congress, with polling data suggesting that neither side is likely to change hands in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I think it's a two man race for the GOP. Jeb and Mitt with Paul Ryan as a possible dark horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I'd be amazed if Mitt even runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I'd be amazed if Mitt even runs. I'd be amazed if Mitt even runs. Agreed if Jeb runs as it appears, Christie might jump in though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted December 18, 2014 Author Share Posted December 18, 2014 Mitt runs, he would be a three time loser. Yeah, he maybe leading in some polls but seriously; who on earth is going to vote for him> He maybe the fav of the investeror class and Mormons but who is going to vote for him> He has no shot at the Republican nomination and definitely no shot in the general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 I'd be amazed if Mitt even runs. I'd be amazed if Ann lets him. She said "never again", and she looked like she meant it, LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted December 19, 2014 Author Share Posted December 19, 2014 Larry Sabato has given an early analysis of the potential 2016 field. You all will love one the negatives he gives for Chris Christie. http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/only-700-days-to-go/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Larry Sabato has given an early analysis of the potential 2016 field. You all will love one the negatives he gives for Chris Christie. http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/only-700-days-to-go/ Bwahaha. I caught it. I won't give it away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZRagone Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Larry Sabato has given an early analysis of the potential 2016 field. You all will love one the negatives he gives for Chris Christie. http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/only-700-days-to-go/ Hahaha, love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 After 15 years being eligible to vote and 13 years in the military, I went and registered to vote the other day for the first time ever. My wife was quite excited for me and asked what part I am most excited for. I told her I did it because I really want to vote in the primaries. I'm hoping that a moderate will win the GOP nomination and all the Ted Cruz following, Fox news watching freak shows will let us level headed Republicans get some work done. Hello, I'm the silent majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Jeb is getting all his affairs in order Jeb Bush leaving health-care company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Jeb is getting all his affairs in order Jeb Bush leaving health-care company All his affairs??? Damn! How many women is he sleeping with? Not to mention men and beasts! How many bestial affairs is he ending just for a chance at the Presidency! Poor heartbroken Scruffy (or thank God Scruffy will finally get spared Jeb's amourous strayings) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Does anybody else find the possibility of another Clinton v Bush election nauseating? My Mom's first presidential election was in 1980, she pointed out to me that every election since has had either a Clinton or a Bush in the running. Some democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Dumb question. If this even allowed? Can Hilary pick her Husband to be VP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Dumb question. If this even allowed? Can Hilary pick her Husband to be VP? I think technically you could do this, but it would be suicide to her campaign. There are enough people who hate the Clintons that a Bill and Hillary campaign could never fly. I think it loses all the Republicans and way too many independents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Dumb question. If this even allowed? Can Hilary pick her Husband to be VP? yes....don't see it happening though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Nah, she'd totally pick a Latino-American as her running mate. That's the demographic you win it all with if she is nominated. It would reverse any value of a Jeb have Rubio on his ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 yes....don't see it happening though I think technically you could do this, but it would be suicide to her campaign. There are enough people who hate the Clintons that a Bill and Hillary campaign could never fly. I think it loses all the Republicans and way too many independents. Just wondering. I didn't think it would happen but i didn't know if there was some rule that a ex-president could be a VP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Does anybody else find the possibility of another Clinton v Bush election nauseating? My Mom's first presidential election was in 1980, she pointed out to me that every election since has had either a Clinton or a Bush in the running. Some democracy. ain't nobody making people vote for them,I think we can do better.......but then I think most of the population is perfectly capable of electing another one of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Think it's legal and if some reason he became president again, he still couldn't run again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 After 15 years being eligible to vote and 13 years in the military, I went and registered to vote the other day for the first time ever. My wife was quite excited for me and asked what part I am most excited for. I told her I did it because I really want to vote in the primaries. I'm hoping that a moderate will win the GOP nomination and all the Ted Cruz following, Fox news watching freak shows will let us level headed Republicans get some work done. Hello, I'm the silent majority. when hasn't a moderate won the nomination? I think Reagan was the nearest thing to a extremist in my lifetime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 when hasn't a moderate won the nomination? I think Reagan was the nearest thing to a extremist in my lifetime I wasn't saying they hadn't won. I just want to make sure it stays that way. I'm really scared of the extremists in the party and what they say they want to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 when hasn't a moderate won the nomination? I think Reagan was the nearest thing to a extremist in my lifetime Yup. McCain and Romney were moderates. I'd argue that W. was pretty extreme esp. on the social and economic sides of Conservatism. He was the absoloute darling for six years of every hyper conservative blogger, radio guy, mediiot and power broker. In fact, if you went against him on anything... Conservatives went ballistic and called you a traitor to the country... challenging that it was treason to disagree with a war time president. But for the last two election cycles, the GOP cynically nominated a candidate that they personally hated, but thought was more electable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.