who wins?

[qazplm]

Republican nomination?

Dem nomination?

My picks:

Bush or Walker. Even money between them in my mind. Bush's money wins, or Walker's conservative bona fides wins.

Clinton. No one looks like they can remotely challenge her at this point. I don't anticipate Obama II to come out of the field. O'Malley is running for VP IMO.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Walker, but I think Bush and an outside chance of Rand Paul because he's got a little bit of that Obama charisma in him and he might attract some independent votes precisely because he's not pure-blood textbook conservative could challenge.

Clinton (duh - is there even going to be another challenger? What would they challenge? It'd have to be a non-progressive, and we're not really "into" centrist candidates these days...)
This post was edited on 4/10 3:04 PM by gr8indoorsman

 

[qazplm]

no progressives view Clinton as a progressive

So actually any alternate candidate would have to be to the left of Clinton to have any chance. No one equivalent to or to the right of her is going to stand a chance.

Obama wasn't really to her left (except on the Iraq War) but he was simply a better campaigner than her, better organized, which is kind of surprising.

I don't see anyone like that emerging.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: no progressives view Clinton as a progressive

... just like Tea Partiers don't think guys like Mitch McConnell are 'conservative' IMO. The fringes are truly scary places.

 

[qazplm]

Re: no progressives view Clinton as a progressive

Her voting record is fairly left of center, solidly so.

But she has a couple of areas that progressives really don't like about her, just like they don't like Obama (they are both similar in these areas):

They think she's a hawk in foreign policy.
TPP (she'll probably support it like Obama).
They don't like "Third Way" democrats, which a lot of Clintonians are. (I'll agree here, it's republican light stuff)
They don't forgive her for the Iraq War vote (not a huge issue to me).

A couple of other areas that I've forgotten.

I don't agree, I think she's a solid left of center candidate, just like Obama. I don't need them to be 100 percent liberal on every single thing to be satisfied with them. Obama isn't, few are.

But yes, the primaries are, to varying degrees, more extreme than the general election. Although progressives I think have less power in their primaries than far-rightists do in theirs.

 

[atmafola]

Please, no Walker. I think 2016 will be Clinton vs Bush. fml. I am not super enthused about a Clinton presidency. Her liberal credentials are a little suspect. More corporatist than liberal. oh well. I am looking forward to the GOP primaries. There are usually a few guys who say some outrightly clownish crap.

 

[indyogb]

Clinton wins the Dem nomination... not even close.

On the Republican side... I don't know. I 'd love to see Paul win. If he won the nomination, I might actually bother to go and vote in the next Presidential election. I doubt he'll take it though - need more big corporate $$$ than he'll get. I guess... Bush???

Good god, Bush vs. Clinton? I think I might prefer Hillary to another Bush. Of course, after 8 years of Bams, I would welcome a Hills administration.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: no progressives view Clinton as a progressive

People think Obama is a Hawk? Holy crap! What tree are they living in so I can go set it on fire?

I also wouldn't characterize Obama as a Third Way democrat nor Hillary, but I guess that could just because I don't think they're fiscally conservative enough. I'd agree that they're not pushing massive tax hikes constantly, but spending has gone up quite a bit under Obama albeit with a Democratically controlled Senate as well which may be a larger factor.

Iraq: man, those guys voted and acted on the information they had at the time. No one manipulated it; the intelligence community flat out got it wrong. People need to get over that crap IMO. Shouldn't even be an issue at this point.

I agree though, I'd prefer a fiscal conservative and someone who's a little more centrist or even center-left socially. I don't really like that we sometimes vote for presidents based on social issues anyway, but that's just me.

 

[atmafola]

Re: no progressives view Clinton as a progressive

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
People think Obama is a Hawk? Holy crap! What tree are they living in so I can go set it on fire?

I also wouldn't characterize Obama as a Third Way democrat nor Hillary, but I guess that could just because I don't think they're fiscally conservative enough. I'd agree that they're not pushing massive tax hikes constantly, but spending has gone up quite a bit under Obama albeit with a Democratically controlled Senate as well which may be a larger factor.

I always have a problem with that statement. Yes spending went up in the first year mostly from the aftermath of the 2008 financial meltdown. Since then, spending has pretty much been flat. I haven't looked at data from recent years( 2014, 2015). But from 2009 - 2013, federal government year on year spending probably increased at its lowest rates in 30 plus years if not 50 years. The 2009 budget with the big jump was actually the previous president. So, big spending Obama is mostly just a myth - one of those things that become "true" when repeated frequently enough.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

The compound annual growth rate of govt spending between 2008 and 2012 is 5.8%. Inflation has been between 1-2%. Spending has gone up under president Obama, regardless of whether most of it happened in two years or not. Spending as a percent of GDP went down in 2012 and 2013, but is still 3% higher than when he took office. I did not say anything that is not factual.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[atmafola]

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
The compound annual growth rate of govt spending between 2008 and 2012 is 5.8%. Inflation has been between 1-2%. Spending has gone up under president Obama, regardless of whether most of it happened in two years or not. Spending as a percent of GDP went down in 2012 and 2013, but is still 3% higher than when he took office. I did not say anything that is not factual.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

well said, now go compute the same stats for Regan, Clinton and Bush II, and lets see where Obama falls. Take the year before they became President and say 5 years into their presidency. My guess, he will come in lower than both Regan and W. And like I pointed out a good deal of that first year increase should actually be counted towards Bush. Bottom line, Obama is not the big spending mythical figure people claim he is. Numbers don't lie.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Anyway the discussion is about third way democrats. Clinton systematically reduced the spending level vs. GDP. Obama has not. His trend is down for two years. Perhaps he will do so his last two into four years.

Note that those times will have been with a Republican congress in both cases. Clinton's a third way; Obama is less so, if at all.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[atmafola]

The spending level vs GDP is a reflection of the weak economy not out of control federal government spending. Recession dropped GDP. In fact, if you exclude mandated spending such as Medicare and Soc Security, the rest of the federal goverment spending are at almost historical lows for modern times. (again I haven't looked at recent numbers 2014, 2015)

I will concede to you that for both Clinton and Obama, the republican congress had a lot to do with the restrained spending. But the numbers simply do not bear out that Obama administration is some big spender. Regan and Bush II were worse by most objective measures.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Reagan yes, absolutely.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[qazplm]

it's down

two dem presidents, trend is down...republican presidents you see it actually go up.

We just got a republican congress, for the past two years Dems controlled 2/3rds.

Spending in real numbers almost always goes up thanks to inflation for every President.

I don't know why folks on the right have such a hard time saying you know what, Obama really doesn't spend anymore than most other Presidents.

 

[qazplm]

Bush too

unless you don't count tax cuts as spending, and there is no reason why you should not...and that's even ignoring the unpaid for war spending, and the unpaid for Medicare Part D.

 

[atmafola]

Qaz, i disagree with you that Obama doesn't spend any more than other presidents. With the exception of Clinton, he spends LESS. The big spending Obama is one of those "facts" everyone on the right knows but few actually verify. It is simply a myth. Period. Some things are debatable, this is not one of them.

 

[lbodel]

It'll be an interesting election.

You have Democrats with a pretty solidified nomination. Then you have Republicans with an "all over the place" primary at the moment. It'll be interesting how quick it's solidified.

With Iowa as the first primary, it can start off rocky for the more "mainstream" Republican candidates (i.e. a Jeb Bush) as Iowa has picked some interesting characters the last couple elections.

But 2 of the first 4 primaries should favor a more mainstream candidate (New Hampshire and New York).

That being said, in 2012, Mitt Romney was basically the main mainstream guy with a bunch of more "to the right" candidates that split wins. In 2012, Mitt Romney lost to Santorum in Iowa, lost to Gingrich in South Carolina, lost to Santorum in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri, barely beat Ron Paul in Maine, lost to Newt Gingrich in Maine, etc.

If the Republican field was Mitt Romney and a couple of others instead of 6 others, the race could have turned out very different.

So it looks like the same thing may happen again this time. If a couple less mainstream people put their weight behind a different candidate leading up to the primaries, things could get interesting.

I've read that outside of launching her campaign, Hillary will stay pretty quiet until the into the summer, which I think is a smart move for not having any big challengers.

 

[ecouch]

Jeb

Hillary

What everyone is thinking...

 

[ecouch]

Rand has a huge millstone hanging from his neck.

It is hard to campaign for being elected the President of the United States while your father is simultaneously the keynote speaker at a secessionist convention discussing dissolving the United States.

The sooner the Paul's exit the stage the better it will be for everyone, both sides.

 

[qazplm]

she's not a great campaigner

to be honest. So it's probably wise to lay low. Less is more with her on the campaign trail. She can only lose this if she tries to do too much and gets caught up in a series of gaffes.

 

[threeeputtt]

Geesh. I am so tired of the ruling class: no more Bush's, Clinton's, Rockefeller's, Romney's, Kennedy'd et all please.

 

[indyogb]

You find that repulsive?

...yet, the scandals from Hillary, Christie, Bush, et al. are OK?

Sure... Rand Paul is the crazy one

- because his dad was a speaker at an event you disagree with.

 

[indyogb]

Yup.

For once, we are in total agreement. I think she's too savvy to screw this up.

I have already kind of acquiesced to her inevitability ... I guess we could do (and have done) worse.

 

[ecouch]

Re: You find that repulsive?

The Paul's are the same. Rand wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act because it is "tyranny" that he can't tell a negroid to get out of his office. Did you know he isn't even a dentist? Rand is such an anarchist/neo-confedarate that he created his own dental licensing organization. Membership - 1. Rand thinks that those letters on your tube of toothpaste are "tyranny". Add into the equation that your father is calling for the second Civil War while giving away AR-15's with the Paul family moniker engraved on the mag well.

I can give you links if you want but this is common knowledge.

Rand is poison to America but especially the GOP.

Want to have some real fun? Research Gary North and his ties to the Paul family.

 

[lbodel]

Re: You find that repulsive?

Let's put it this way, if Rand Paul was a Democrat, Republicans would be going after him in ways that would make the things they made up about Obama look like glowing endorsements.

 

[qazplm]

Re: You find that repulsive?

Eye doctor not dentist... Otherwise correct.

 

[indyogb]

Well, thanks for the rational argument devoid of extreme hyperbole.

Of course, you'll get usual suspects from this board nodding with approval (edit: I see they've already checked in) - which is about as damning a criticism as I can give.

If half of the country really thinks like this, then maybe Ron Paul is on to something with his speeches to secessionist groups .

This post was edited on 4/14 8:59 AM by indyogb

 

[qazplm]

I dont think she's too savvy

I do think she's learned some lessons from her horrible campaign last time.

In fact, she's hired some of Obama's team, and even if you hate Obama, anyone with eyes has to see he's assembled a team that is organized, and knows how to run a campaign and get out the vote and identify voting patterns down to the tiniest minutiae.

I don't think she's inevitable, I think she's highly likely though. Just too much anecdotal evidence out there of even republican women looking to vote for her.

 

[qazplm]

what hyperbole?

1. Rand Paul has said multiple times he believes in the ability of a business to deny anyone, including minorities service. If you agree with that, got it, but that's not hyperbole, that's fact.

2. Rand Paul created his own certification to become a licensed ophthalmologist. The AMA never recognized it, and Paul let it dissolve once he didn't need it anymore. The test was a take-home exam.

3. There are plenty of ties to his dad of white supremacists. Rand's spokesman had to resign because of it. Now, Rand has made very visible attempts to talk to minority communities, so I can't tell for sure whether he's rejected his father's racism and is simply a libertarian with all the extremes that come with it, or if he's just learned to hide his own prejudices better. Either is possible.

 

[ecouch]

Re: Well, thanks for the rational argument devoid of extreme hyperbole.

None of that was hyperbole.

It was all factual.

Rand has another problem as well.

The Alex Jones connection. Rand is trying to throw Alex Jones under the bus even though he credited his success to the multiple appearances on his conspiracy theory radio program.



What? I don't know Alex Jones. /trollface

 

[ecouch]

Re: You find that repulsive?

Thanks for the correction. For some reason my memory associated dentist instead of optometrist. As you said though, everything holds.

This is why I want the GOP primaries to be bloody. There is so much material for comedy writers.

 

[Purdue85]

so, wait... we should restrain spending?

Originally posted by atmafola:
The spending level vs GDP is a reflection of the weak economy not out of control federal government spending. Recession dropped GDP. In fact, if you exclude mandated spending such as Medicare and Soc Security, the rest of the federal goverment spending are at almost historical lows for modern times. (again I haven't looked at recent numbers 2014, 2015)

I will concede to you that for both Clinton and Obama, the republican congress had a lot to do with the restrained spending. But the numbers simply do not bear out that Obama administration is some big spender. Regan and Bush II were worse by most objective measures.

I want to make sure I understand the argument... high spending, bad. Correct?

And, we go from national debt of approximately $10 Trillion B.O. (before Obama), to $18 Trillion D.O. (during Obama), and you're going to make an argument Obama isn't some big spender???

In other words, not only has this clown spent all money coming in, he's damn near doubled our debt, yet he's no big spender.

meh....