Quest for the Presidency (2016 Edition)

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

deepsepia,

Won't copy your post as its so long, but I'm wondering if this "sky is falling" tactic is really going to be all that productive.

Remember that people get egged on by the base. The Republican party activists have grown ever more extreme. So Republican candidates get in trouble trying to position themselves attractively for the extremists they need early in a campaign.

Richard Nixon is said to have told Bob Dole: ""Run like hell to the right in the primaries, then run like hell to the center", which remains true.

The problem is that in today's medial environment, you can't bury the crazy things you said to crazy people.

But in Ben Carson's case, I don't think this nuttiness is about pandering. He genuinely has extreme ideas. To compare health insurance to slavery -- for an African American, that's weird and extreme; indeed, for anyone its weird and extreme.

To me its suggests that he's grappling with some ideas that are very far from the mainstream, rather than just pandering.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

The problem is that in today's medial environment, you can't bury the crazy things you said to crazy people.

But in Ben Carson's case, I don't think this nuttiness is about pandering. He genuinely has extreme ideas. To compare health insurance to slavery -- for an African American, that's weird and extreme; indeed, for anyone its weird and extreme.

To me its suggests that he's grappling with some ideas that are very far from the mainstream, rather than just pandering.

But don't forget, the Republican movement was aching with desire to nominate Rick Santorum in 2011-12, and Mr Santorum wanted to abolish the public school system and was firmly of the opinion that Britain's adoption of a universal health service directly caused the downfall of the British Empire. NB India and Pakistan became independent at midnight on 14th August 1947 and the National Health Service opened its doors to the first patient on 5th July 1948. Maybe it was the mere fear of an impending National Health Service which forced the Empire to crumble...

The truth is that Santorum was and is serious lunatic fringe material and yet the Republican faithful voted for him in droves. This tells us a great deal about how fanatical and divorced from Planet Earth the electorate in the Republican Primaries had become in 2011-12, that a candidate such as Santorum was taken seriously and attracted support. The Republican Party has lost the plot and many more sober-minded right wing American voters consider themselves to be independents, unrepresented by either of the main parties. There is a vacancy for a responsible and honest right wing political party in the USA. In fact, when one looks carefully at the Democrats, there is a vacancy for a responsible and honest left-of-centre political party also. The Democrats have benefitted hugely from the rabid, hydrophobia extremism of the current Republican Party; a 1970s style Republican Party with a candidate like Gerald Ford would have pissed on President Obama in the 2012 elections.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

The truth is that Santorum was and is serious lunatic fringe material and yet the Republican faithful voted for him in droves. This tells us a great deal about how fanatical and divorced from Planet Earth the electorate in the Republican Primaries had become in 2011-12, that a candidate such as Santorum was taken seriously and attracted support.

{snip}

The Democrats have benefitted hugely from the rabid, hydrophobia extremism of the current Republican Party; a 1970s style Republican Party with a candidate like Gerald Ford would have pissed on President Obama in the 2012 elections.

Yes, and yes.

I think had Mitt Romney run as Mitt Romney, he could have beaten Obama, who was a pretty lacklustre candidate in 2012. Jason Alexander (George Costanza) had the most concise take on it, when Romney publically namechecked his Seinfeld alter ego

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Yes, and yes.

I think had Mitt Romney run as Mitt Romney, he could have beaten Obama, who was a pretty lacklustre candidate in 2012. Jason Alexander (George Costanza) had the most concise take on it, when Romney publically namechecked his Seinfeld alter ego

I have no great liking for Romney himself who was suffering from very serious character defects, but I do take the broader thrust of your argument. And here we have the problem. If Mitt Romney had run as Mitt Romney, he would have been defeated in the primaries by Rick Santorum, who ran as Rick Santorum.

[AmateurEmale]

Hillary will probably run in 2016, in an attempt to own the women's vote in the same way that 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama. I predict it won't be as successful, since she is more of the "establishment" than Obama was. Also, a Hillary-versus-Jeb [Bush] matchup would bring out even more young Democrats than 2008, especially the younger African-Americans who opposed Hillary, holding up signs saying "Don't Be Fooled! End The Clinton And Bush Dynasties!"

Gary Johnson says he is all but ready to run again as a Libertarian in 2016. Rand Paul might run as a Republican, but he is nowhere near as rational as Johnson. Rand Paul claimed on Rachel Maddow's show that he doesn't like the 1964 Civil Rights Act because it interferes with private discrimination; I don't think many minorities would vote for Rand Paul because of this stance, unlike some minorities who liked his father circa 2012 because Ron Paul correctly identifies the War on Drugs and U.S. justice system as racist. Gary Johnson would be better supported by Democrats than Rand Paul, because Johnson won election and then re-election in New Mexico, a state that is 2-1 Democrat and majority-minority, with more Hispanics and Native Americans than whites.

[9876543210]

AmateurEmale,

Originally Posted by AmateurEmale

Hillary will probably run in 2016, in an attempt to own the women's vote in the same way that 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama. I predict it won't be as successful, since she is more of the "establishment" than Obama was.

I think you're right unless something major happens to her. And if she does run she'll probably sail through the nomination process. The question is who will run against her in the Democratic party?

Also, a Hillary-versus-Jeb [Bush] matchup would bring out even more young Democrats than 2008, especially the younger African-Americans who opposed Hillary, holding up signs saying "Don't Be Fooled! End The Clinton And Bush Dynasties!"

I think there are probably going to be a lot of young people voting just due to the Republican's efforts to deny them the vote. Time will tell but I think that will still be fresh in most people's minds.

And I could be wrong but I don't think Jeb can get through a primary. Unless something happens to the tea partiers Jeb just can't get past them.

Gary Johnson says he is all but ready to run again as a Libertarian in 2016.

I like Johnson also but his chances of winning are almost 0. He's too realistic and hasn't been bought and paid for.

Rand Paul might run as a Republican, but he is nowhere near as rational as Johnson. Rand Paul claimed on Rachel Maddow's show that he doesn't like the 1964 Civil Rights Act because it interferes with private discrimination; I don't think many minorities would vote for Rand Paul because of this stance, unlike some minorities who liked his father circa 2012 because Ron Paul correctly identifies the War on Drugs and U.S. justice system as racist. Gary Johnson would be better supported by Democrats than Rand Paul, because Johnson won election and then re-election in New Mexico, a state that is 2-1 Democrat and majority-minority, with more Hispanics and Native Americans than whites.

Rand seems to suffer from chronic foot in mouth disease. Sometimes I agree with him but most of the time he seems to be way out in right field. He might be able to get through a primary but he'd probably get his clock cleaned in a general.

Well, we've got three more weeks before the next election is over. Can't wait as the Democrats seem to have learned one valuable lesson from the Republicans during the last two cycles. They're spending money like crazy here in Wisconsin for the Governor's race. It seems there are almost twice as many ads for Democrats as there are against.

[AmateurEmale]

If we could bring together Gary Johnson (L-NM) with another buff athlete who isn't a far-right Republican and who used to be a governor, like maybe Jesse Ventura (Independent from Minnesota) or Arnold Schwarzenegger (Republican from California), these guys could use their celebrity status and political connections to win more votes.

The only thing I don't like about Jesse Ventura is that he has suggested reinstating the military draft, but he's also said some crazier things that probably wouldn't be implemented either, like prosecuting the Catholic Church under RICO statutes for covering up child molestation by pedophile priests. [!] People consider Ventura an attention whore for making these kinds of statements repeatedly in the U.S. media; the Catholic League called him "Jesse The Bigot" for remarks he made in the late '90s, even though Ventura [aka. James George Janos] is himself of Slovakian Catholic descent.

Arnold Schwarzenegger would be another great statesman who would likely intimidate other nations more than Ronald Reagan or Dwight David Eisenhower. Because he wasn't born in the U.S., he isn't eligible for the Presidency under current U.S. law, but most people online say that the laws should be changed to allow someone like him to occupy the White House, and now that people are no longer obsessed with Obama's birth certificate like they were in 2008, I think that Schwarzenegger would be viable for either President or Vice President. His policy positions are moderate Republicanism; he supports some of California's clean air standards and gun control laws. I think he might be persuaded to libertarianism eventually, considering that he referred to anti-capitalist Democrats as "economic girlie-men" a few years back.

Another thing I like about Gary Johnson is that he is moderately non-interventionist in foreign policy; he wants to reduce U.S. military personnel in Europe from 100,000 to 50,000 or less. He thinks we might still require some forces in the Middle East, but in no way advocates confrontation with Iran, unlike neo-conservative Republicans and far-right ministers like John Hagee who are influential in the GOP.

I also agree with Johnson in that he partially privatized Medicaid when he was Governor; moving toward a managed-care system for most recipients and saving about 30% on overall spending. He also privatized half of New Mexico's prisons, cut taxes 14 times, and vetoed more regulatory bills than the other 49 Governors put together.

Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and other libertarian-leaning Republicans should stay in Congress, while Johnson (who officially changed parties in 2012) should run for President in 2016.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by AmateurEmale

Arnold Schwarzenegger would be another great statesman who would likely intimidate other nations more than Ronald Reagan or Dwight David Eisenhower. Because he wasn't born in the U.S., he isn't eligible for the Presidency under current U.S. law, but most people online say that the laws should be changed to allow someone like him to occupy the White House, and now that people are no longer obsessed with Obama's birth certificate like they were in 2008, I think that Schwarzenegger would be viable for either President or Vice President. His policy positions are moderate Republicanism; he supports some of California's clean air standards and gun control laws. I think he might be persuaded to libertarianism eventually, considering that he referred to anti-capitalist Democrats as "economic girlie-men" a few years back.

Gotta disagree about Arnold. He might have been near what you posted before he knocked up his maid. Now he is a proven cheater and here in California, at least, has very little if any support anymore.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Gotta disagree about Arnold. He might have been near what you posted before he knocked up his maid. Now he is a proven cheater and here in California, at least, has very little if any support anymore.

It is a strange thing isn't it, that voters who are mostly at least as morally venal as this if not more so, expect their elected representatives to embody standards which the voters themselves do not live by. Politicians routinely commit the sin of hypocrisy by pretending to live moral lives; but the voters are equally hypocritical when they expect their politicians to live moral lives and yet do not themselves live moral lives. I suspect Ahnuld is probably more moral and more honest than the majority of the present Congress. Whether he would make a good president is one whole other question.

[savage560]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

It is a strange thing isn't it, that voters who are mostly at least as morally venal as this if not more so, expect their elected representatives to embody standards which the voters themselves do not live by. Politicians routinely commit the sin of hypocrisy by pretending to live moral lives; but the voters are equally hypocritical when they expect their politicians to live moral lives and yet do not themselves live moral lives. I suspect Ahnuld is probably more moral and more honest than the majority of the present Congress. Whether he would make a good president is one whole other question.

You generalize about the voters of this country a lot.How do you know most do not live moral lives in your estimation?Judge not,you will be judged... ,well read the link!Whats wrong with expecting your leaders voted in for the people,by the people to be the be expected to live an exemplary life style,as best as they can do, & is it wrong to think as leaders, they should set an example of excellence for the commoners to follow?Me thinks you should come to the US & see that we are all (well most of us) living in here,are living an "English Gentlemans" type of Chivalrous lifestyle, or an English Dame,for the women for ,for instance.




http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html