balki1867 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Clinton was Governor of a nothing state (politically). To suggest he would be President 2 years prior to his election would have brought laughs from even the most savvy. Once he got his foot in the door, he was impossible to stop. He was young and hip. Still, he would not have won without Perot in the race. Any other Democratic candidate would not have won WITH Perot in the race. I was 12 when Clinton got elected but what I remember from that election cycle was that he really came out of nowhere. At the time when candidates would've begun fundraising (early 1991), George Bush was riding ~90% approval ratings at the end of the first Gulf War. It (seemingly) was political suicide for any serious candidate to talk about running against him. Clinton basically stepped into a void, and then a number of other external factors fell into place (the economy, Ross Perot). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Heck, I strongly suspect that, when Daddy Bush was in the White House, and W and Jeb decided that gee, they really wanted to move to the two largest (in electoral votes) Republican states in the US, it was with the intention of becoming Governors, so they could run for President. I strongly suspect you don't know W's history, Jeb was certainly groomed for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I really don't have another primary season in me. The stupid on both sides burns.I feel ya. But I can't just sit back and let what happened last month happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 A word about Jeb. Im not sure I will support him. To early and I don't know who else is going to jump in (or, to be specific, claim that they are now open to exploring the possibility of maybe running). But I think Jeb is the perfect flawed candidate. I love his stance on immigration (as should every person left of Ted Cruz). I hate his stance on Common Core, but can understand the need for SOMETHING. I hated what he did with Schiavo. I loved what he did for Florida businesses as Governor. Are we to the point on both sides where a centrist (as defined by the party, not by the media and general voting populace) is running, and the far extremes on both sides are going to have to hold their nose and vote, rather than the centrists having to hold their nose and vote for an extremist? I think that's a good thing. I don't know if Jeb can get through the primaries. And I don't know if he can get past the R in front of Jeb and the Bush behind it. But I think he's a lot more qualified and willing to compromise than people will give him credit for immediately. He's a conservative, and to some that will immediately disqualify him. But he's not an empty suit. And he's not a nutjob extremist. I'm still hoping Kasich gets in for the GOP and my mancrush Schweitzer gets in for the Dems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 A word about Jeb. Im not sure I will support him. To early and I don't know who else is going to jump in (or, to be specific, claim that they are now open to exploring the possibility of maybe running). But I think Jeb is the perfect flawed candidate. I love his stance on immigration (as should every person left of Ted Cruz). I hate his stance on Common Core, but can understand the need for SOMETHING. I hated what he did with Schiavo. I loved what he did for Florida businesses as Governor. Are we to the point on both sides where a centrist (as defined by the party, not by the media and general voting populace) is running, and the far extremes on both sides are going to have to hold their nose and vote, rather than the centrists having to hold their nose and vote for an extremist? I think that's a good thing. I don't know if Jeb can get through the primaries. And I don't know if he can get past the R in front of Jeb and the Bush behind it. But I think he's a lot more qualified and willing to compromise than people will give him credit for immediately. He's a conservative, and to some that will immediately disqualify him. But he's not an empty suit. And he's not a nutjob extremist. I'm still hoping Kasich gets in for the GOP and my mancrush Schweitzer gets in for the Dems. The problem for Republicans in a national election remains the immigration issue. It's going to sink whichever candidate ultimately wins their primaries because they will be forced to cater to the hard right. There is no escaping that for Jeb either. It's an issue they should have gotten out of the way over the last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Nah, the real problem for Republicans in a national election is that they can't win via gerrymandering. I guess that's why they're going overboard on the new voter laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 The problem for Republicans in a national election remains the immigration issue. It's going to sink whichever candidate ultimately wins their primaries because they will be forced to cater to the hard right. There is no escaping that for Jeb either. It's an issue they should have gotten out of the way over the last year. I think they will once the new congress is seated. The newly elected aren't farther right of what is currently there, so I don't think the fight will damage anyone. I disagree about Jeb not being able to escape it. He did while he was governor, and has been pretty vocal about it over the past year. He's going to have an issue in Iowa, but not in NH. If he can avoid the bottom in Iowa, he has the chance to do it. The GOP proved this last election that they have the ability to not only silence and reign in the nutbags, but still get the support they need at the ballot box in November. I don't know if he can, I just know it's not impossible. Nah, the real problem for Republicans in a national election is that they can't win via gerrymandering. I guess that's why they're going overboard on the new voter laws. I hope the Dems continue to believe that the main reason they lost in November was gerrymandering or voter laws. I wonder how many young people will get inspired to turn out for Hillary. If they don't show up in the same numbers as they did for Obama, she'll be in trouble. Add to that the ability for a candidate like Jeb to siphon off even a small percentage of Hispanic votes, and the GOP probably becomes the favorite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 If Republicans didn't think these efforts were effective they wouldn't pursue them so aggressively. In a country that's split basically 51-49 very minor effects can have huge results. Regardless, the GOP has been running a suppress the vote effort for fifty years and there must be a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Didn't these recent elections have the lowest turnout in 70 years? Not sure what can be learned from that which can be applied to a general election in 2 years. Not sure Jeb runs between the toxic primary season and the Bush brand. Might just decide to continue his very successful post politics life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 The same can be said for Dems efforts They certainly have an affect. Just not what the left thinks and claims Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 The same can be said for Dems efforts They certainly have an affect. Just not what the left thinks and claims Noted that you are arguing the strength of the effect versus the reasoning behind the actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Oh for sure. I've never said otherwise. I just don't refuse to admit both sides are doing it Didn't these recent elections have the lowest turnout in 70 years? Not sure what can be learned from that which can be applied to a general election in 2 years. Not sure Jeb runs between the toxic primary season and the Bush brand. Might just decide to continue his very successful post politics life. You realize he basically announced yesterday right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Oh for sure. I've never said otherwise. I just don't refuse to admit both sides are doing it You realize he basically announced yesterday right? I know what he announced yesterday. At some point somebody is going to say "nah, nevermind" after doing their exploring or whatever it happening in the background. Just wait.....if in the next few weeks you have others planning to run from his party getting nasty before a primary. He might decide its not worth it. Doing this forces an attempt to dig up whatever on him now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted December 17, 2014 Author Share Posted December 17, 2014 The Republican race will be a three way race. The Establishment candidate, which Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mitt Romney would fall into. The Tea Party type which would be Ted Cruz. The libatarian type which would Rand Paul. The establish,ment type is the favorite and party insiders will make sure it happens. Will the tea partiers who are already pissed at the Republicans stay home? Go third party? I say they stay home unless it's Hillary. Hillary venom would be enough to lure them out. As for Dems, it depends on Hillary for now. Thing is, I don't think she is a lock. The base left don't like her. They are pushing for Elizabeth Warren to get in. If there's a strong credible left candidate; I think they beat Hillary. Depending on how the primaries go; there really is a possibility for a third and even fourth party run. One from the left and one from the right. We will have to wait and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 People say the same things every year. And every year the establishment candidate wins. In the rare case where that doesn't happen (2012 for instance), the base on either side quickly rallies behind the nominee. To me, the only thing at stake is whether people believe the country is going in the right direction. If they do, they'll show up and more people will vote D. If they don't, some of those D votes will stay at home and the Rs will win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 after 8 years like these any competent R stands a very good shot one (or combo) that can draw from all the legs of the stool would be almost a lock. http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/04/history-is-not-on-the-democrats-side-in-2016/ the change in the order of state primaries will make it a bit more interesting to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 after 8 years like these any competent R stands a very good shot one (or combo) that can draw from all the legs of the stool would be almost a lock. http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/04/history-is-not-on-the-democrats-side-in-2016/ the change in the order of state primaries will make it a bit more interesting to me You mean eight years that led to a lower deficit, record stock markets, unemployment under 8%, the elimination of Bin Laden, US becoming oil independent, and a move towards normalization with Cuba, etc. etc. etc. Yeah, everything sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Those same stats existed a month ago too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Those same stats existed a month ago too And two years ago, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Lower deficits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 And two years ago, too. And Obama would defeat Romney again in 16. The candidate makes a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Lower deficits? The deficit has gone down every single year Obama has been in office. (Although I'm noticing that it's apparently budgeted to go up, in FY15.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I don't know that record Stock Markets would be a good thing or bad thing. I don't know that the general public identifies that with prosperity for the average person. That plays better on the right then the left IMO. I think the unemployment thing has areas it can be attacked as well. That number is gamed a lot and I think most Americans understand that. I think it's important but I don't know if it would be considered as favorably as it would be if unemployment for minorities were much lower or the under employed stats showed or the general shrink in the labor force overall. The US has become more self reliant with regards to Oil Production but it's been driven by private means. It's not the position of this Administration and the stance on things like the Keystone Pipeline and EPA regulation expansions will be pretty key there. I don't know how that will play. Normalizations with Cuba is not a starter IMO. It's cool but I don't think it's really an issue that is going to gain traction in a Presidential Election. You have too many other more important Foreign Policy issues that are going poorly like the Middle East, Russia etc. I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 The deficit has gone down every single year Obama has been in office. (Although I'm noticing that it's apparently budgeted to go up, in FY15.) 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. Those same stats existed a month ago too That's true. I do wonder where we would be if the constant negative spin wasn't so predominant. We are so hyperconscious of bad news these days that we often believe things are even worse than they are. If I gave you the list above and said this would be the reality six years after the banking and stock market collapse, you'd think we'd be cheering in the streets instead of bemoaning the worst President and Congress in US history. Mind you, I don't think things are GREAT or even GOOD, but compared to where we were? Things are pretty darn fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.