-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
Those working class white defections have happened. Obama still won in 2012 with the coalition there. Either way, Hillary will do better than Obama with those voters, even if she doesn't win them.
And "it's hard to win 3 elections in a row!" is as useless as they come.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Obama's net neutrality' shit behind the scenes.
DAMN.
I hope Cenk will be on TYT eating crow and apologizing profusely
DAMN.
I hope Cenk will be on TYT eating crow and apologizing profusely
Aaron Strife
Banned
I disagree. Democrats have a clear edge in the electoral college which stacks the deck in their favor for winning the presidency. The era of a toss-up election that comes down to Ohio and Florida are over for the time being as Colorado and even Virginia have moved more comfortably into the Democratic column. I agree with Kos, Republicans can win with midterm turnout but not with presidential turnout. The only time they've won the popular vote in the past twenty years they had to fib their way into a war and even then Bush barely held on. They have no candidate right now who could beat Clinton and if they did they probably wouldn't make it through a primary anyway. The current crop (Christie, Bush, Walker etc) will pull closer to her in polling before the election but I still think we're looking at a 2008-level landslide here.
Not bad. Most articles from those thinking that the GOP could win seem to conveniently ignore addressing the issue of the map, and it peeves me to no end. (And you already know how skeptical I am about the idea that Virginia is actually in play.)
Just like the Dems would need a royal flush to get the House back before 2022, the GOP would also need to shoot the moon in order to win all of those swing states (pardon the mixed card metaphors).
I think 2016 will likely be tighter than 2012 (Hillary isn't as strong a candidate as Obama), but I still think the GOP's candidate will come up a few states short.
I certainly agree with you and others. I just gave the GOP the benefit of the doubt with those states assuming CO, NV, & NH went blue. That is the most likely scenario for a R victory. Running those states I listed(FL, OH, VA, NC) is not enough. They have to pick off a mid-western state like PA, MI, IA & WI or go the west and pick off NV or CO.
Of course all the D's have to do is win Kerry+NM+ "insert swing state like VA, FL, OH etc) and checkmate.
Considering that the 2014 voter turnout was one of the lowest on record, that election should be a huge fucking red flag for the Republicans.
Sadly, or maybe luckily, they won't even sniff a clue here about their real problems with voters.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It's 2010 all over again. Republicans taking the absolute worst reading of the election results and stepping closer and closer to the edge of oblivion. Good luck with that shit. As we speak Jeb Bush is getting crucifying for immigration comments he made in Detroit a few years ago. They're gearing up to take him down and nominate another culture warrior.
The fact that they have to fight for VA & NC & possibly GA where as Bush in 2000 won them handily is telling enough that the Democrats have an advantage.
Sure Bush regained the 7 Clinton states (TN, WV, AR, LA, KY) (GA, AZ 92, 96 respectively)+MO but they dont make up that many electoral votes.
Aaron Strife
Banned
It's not that it's impossible for Republicans to win, that'd be a dumb assertion. But it's like... look at the swing states in 2012. North Carolina, Obama won without it. Florida, could have won without it. Ohio, could have won without it. Virginia, could have won without it. Republicans would need to win all four of those and then either of the two next closest states, Colorado or Pennsylvania, which Obama took by over five points each. If the GOP wins they'll do so by the skin of their teeth whereas the Democrats have much more breathing room - remember that even at their lowest point in the past six elections (Kerry's loss) they still just needed to swing one Ohio to win.
By the way I don't see the GOP swinging Iowa or Wisconsin, Obama won them very comfortably in 2012. I think that's a bit of a ridiculous discussion to be having when they're currently getting trounced by Hillary in the holy trinity of swing states, OH/FL/PA. The margins will tighten of course, but I feel the pessimists among us are too quick to go "The polls don't matter, REPUBLICANS ARE GONNA WIN WISCONSIN" which is a statement is even more baseless than predicting a Hillary victory.
By the way I don't see the GOP swinging Iowa or Wisconsin, Obama won them very comfortably in 2012. I think that's a bit of a ridiculous discussion to be having when they're currently getting trounced by Hillary in the holy trinity of swing states, OH/FL/PA. The margins will tighten of course, but I feel the pessimists among us are too quick to go "The polls don't matter, REPUBLICANS ARE GONNA WIN WISCONSIN" which is a statement is even more baseless than predicting a Hillary victory.
He's supposed to be the moderate and he's polling well behind Walker in New Hampshire. If Jeb can't win New Hampshire, he can't win the nomination, period.
So we'll get Walker and Jeb on stage with a few crazies for a few months. Walker has the charisma of a tree stump and will get trounced in the general. He probably couldn't even win his home state.
And even though the polls will tighten, even the few polls have Hillary with a very comfortable lead over Wisconsin. That… shouldn't happen.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Walker's charisma makes me wonder if he's just going to be the GOP-frontrunner-of-the-day or if he could actually be the nominee.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, and look at 2014's wave election for republicans, between Pennsylvania and Colorado, they lost both governor races at a 2.9 percentage points for Colorado and 9.8 points for Pennsylvania, and Republicans won Colorado's senate race by a measly 2.5 points. They didn't fare much better in every other Democrat leaning state. Even in Virginia and New Hampshire, Republicans still ended up losing in every meaningful way.
They basically need to do about as well as they did in 2014 in order to win the presidency, and that's almost impossible unless the economy straight up crashes (which is honestly possible), or the electoral map drastically changes (which I don't know how that would happen).
He makes Mitt look animated and interesting! Debating him would be like debating a tree stump. He reminds me of that guy from the West Wing that ran against Bartlett for reelection.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I don't buy the charisma argument. As I keep pointing out...outside of Christie, name one logical nominee choice that is charismatic. Jeb Bush? Rick Perry? Mitt Romney? None of them are. That makes it a non issue to me, primary wise. Whoever wins will be an uncharismatic candidate (because there's no way Christie gets the nom).
Walker has the best record, the least vulnerabilities, and is the only candidate who can equally satisfy the establishment and the conservative base.
Walker has the best record, the least vulnerabilities, and is the only candidate who can equally satisfy the establishment and the conservative base.
Exactly. There isn't a charismatic guy among the bunch.
Oh, I don't think his charisma is a problem in the primary. It's certainly a problem in the general.
That's the guy who's going to convince people not to vote for the first female president? Him?
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Name three more charismatic politicians than him, who have been active since after the 2008 election.
It's not like he's George Clooney or anything, be he's still near the top in speech and debate abilities among prominent politicians.
True, but no individual is going to defeat Hillary without some major things going wrong.
Its not like Hillary is charismatic either. When compared to Bill Clinton & Barack Obama even I have to admit she does not exactly ooze excitement.
Can you really see Hillary giving a barn burner nomination speech that wont be overshadowed by her husband & Obama the night or 2 before? or any speech she gives during the campaign like Obama's race speech or Nixon's Checkers speech?
Can you really see Hillary giving a barn burner nomination speech that wont be overshadowed by her husband & Obama the night or 2 before? or any speech she gives during the campaign like Obama's race speech or Nixon's Checkers speech?
How have we not discussed Rand Paul's brilliant walk back on his stupid vaccine remarks?
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rand-paul-and-temporal-relationships
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rand-paul-and-temporal-relationships
Aaron Strife
Banned
Bill's DNC speech gave Obama his bump while Obama's own speech was fairly underwhelming. If she has amazing surrogates it won't matter.
I also should point out Obama himself is a pretty once-in-a-generation candidate. I don't think it's reasonable to expect Hillary or any Democrat in the near future to measure up to him.
speculawyer
Member
This is conservatives extrapolating far too much off of a midterm election when lazy-ass Dems didn't bother to go to the polls.
WayneMorse
Banned
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=985925
Are we sure we can't give Obama a third term? Or find some way to transfer his 2015 mind back to 2009 like in X-Men?
Are we sure we can't give Obama a third term? Or find some way to transfer his 2015 mind back to 2009 like in X-Men?
Aaron Strife
Banned
I popped a Boehner from this thread.
Obama was guaranteed a legacy once PPACA was passed, which will probably be unrepealable (now a word!) if Democrats win again in 2016.
Personally, I don't think Virginia will really be in play in 2016 if Hillary runs. It will go blue a lot easier for for Hillary than it did for Obama. All based on my unscientific opinion from having grown up there.
speculawyer
Member
Oh I think you are quite right. I think there are a LOT of states south of Mason-Dixon line that will be much easier for Hillary than they were for Obama.
Not quite sure why though. Hmm. ;-)
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I do wonder what would have changed if there were no term limits.
Seems to me that ever since the 22nd Amendment was ratified, only Eisenhower, Clinton, and Obama would have had a chance at ever achieving a third term.
Reagan was really suffering from Alzheimer's by his would be 3rd election, and everyone else died, resigned, or was too unpopular to be elected to a 3rd term.
I'm not dead set against term limits, but I do wonder if they're really that needed.
He's an idiot. Temporally related my ass, what a moron.
I got a woody from reading that, do I have to see someone if it lasts more than 4 hours? I only ask because thing isn't dying down.
I argued this in the off-topic once before, but I think a former President can't be elected more than twice. But maybe Obama could run on a third term, but have Michelle be at the top of the ticket, have himself run as the Vice President, and then on inauguration day have Michelle immediately resign after being sworn in. Obama then immediately assumes his third term.
But some people said he was ineligible to assume the Presidency, and it goes to the next in line. Though from the wording of the amendment I don't see how he's disqualified to assume the Presidency, it clearly just limits itself to saying no more than being elected twice.
22nd Amendment said:
Man, only reason that amendment exists is because people were salty FDR had four terms.
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, it is insulting. He fucks up and then he always tries to blame it on others. Aqua Buddha is going to get as close to the white house as his dad.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
lol. That's a great idea.
The main problem is that Congress never really thought about that when making the 22nd amendment, and that basically means the supreme court justices can do whatever the hell they want regarding it, because that's how our government works.
Seriously, he acts like we're all fucking morons. He'd never survive a real campaign, fuck he'd never survive the clown car show that is the GOP primary.
The dude is remarkably thin skinned. Those are among the worst people to try and run for high office.
TacticalFox88
Banned
In contrast, Obama seems to have skin thicker than Smaug's hide.
I would've verbally bitch slapped these racist fuckheads within the first 100 days of the presidency.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
12th amendment.
The twelfth amendment probably prohibit that, but that has not been tested.
Also, while I approve of the lulz, I think it's really terrible to have the first woman elected president to be a mere ploy to get her man back in office.
The 22nd Amendment only prohibits election to the office of Presidency. It doesn't address the other means of accessing the Presidency - succession.
This means that if, say, Bill Clinton were somewhere in that line of succession, he would not be barred from rising back into the Presidency if something happened to everyone ahead of him in line. The 22nd Amendment doesn't prohibit this.. it still leaves this door open via its silence on the subject.
Which means he'd still technically be "eligible" to the office of the Presidency.
Which negates any 12th Amendment concerns about being qualified to run as VP.
I get the intent of the authors of the 22nd Amendment, but if they wanted to close both doors to the office - election and succession - then they should've used more precise language.
---
And after I was giggling at Jeb avoiding stepping in it, it seems like Jeb is out to alienate primary voters big-time on the immigration issue..
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...e_our_liberties_if_we_control_the_border.html
Here's the big line that the freepers are freaking over:
"it's not possible in a free country to completely control the border without us losing our freedoms and liberties."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3254334/posts
If he doesn't get the nod, I'd love for him to endorse his "brother from another mother" to be First Gentleman. But that won't happen in this world..
This means that if, say, Bill Clinton were somewhere in that line of succession, he would not be barred from rising back into the Presidency if something happened to everyone ahead of him in line. The 22nd Amendment doesn't prohibit this.. it still leaves this door open via its silence on the subject.
Which means he'd still technically be "eligible" to the office of the Presidency.
Which negates any 12th Amendment concerns about being qualified to run as VP.
I get the intent of the authors of the 22nd Amendment, but if they wanted to close both doors to the office - election and succession - then they should've used more precise language.
---
And after I was giggling at Jeb avoiding stepping in it, it seems like Jeb is out to alienate primary voters big-time on the immigration issue..
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...e_our_liberties_if_we_control_the_border.html
Here's the big line that the freepers are freaking over:
"it's not possible in a free country to completely control the border without us losing our freedoms and liberties."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3254334/posts
If he doesn't get the nod, I'd love for him to endorse his "brother from another mother" to be First Gentleman. But that won't happen in this world..
RustyNails
Member
Why not just switch Biden and Obama for 2016?
That would be one hysterical troll.
Imagine Biden's nomination acceptance speech.. it'd be a paragraph long:
"I promise that, if elected President, I will be sworn-in and then resign 5 minutes later! Thank you, God bless you, and God bless our United States of America!"
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The 22nd Amendment only prohibits election to the office of Presidency. It doesn't address the other means of accessing the Presidency - succession.
This means that if, say, Bill Clinton were somewhere in that line of succession, he would not be barred from rising back into the Presidency if something happened to everyone ahead of him in line. The 22nd Amendment doesn't prohibit this.. it still leaves this door open via its silence on the subject.
Which means he'd still technically be "eligible" to the office of the Presidency.
Which negates any 12th Amendment concerns about being qualified to run as VP.
I get the intent of the authors of the 22nd Amendment, but if they wanted to close both doors to the office - election and succession - then they should've used more precise language.
---
And after I was giggling at Jeb avoiding stepping in it, it seems like Jeb is out to alienate primary voters big-time on the immigration issue..
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...e_our_liberties_if_we_control_the_border.html
Here's the big line that the freepers are freaking over:
"it's not possible in a free country to completely control the border without us losing our freedoms and liberties."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3254334/posts
If he doesn't get the nod, I'd love for him to endorse his "brother from another mother" to be First Gentleman. But that won't happen in this world..
He can't run for VP. I think the supreme court would rule the two agree on that even if you can come up with another meaning
I do think that succession through speakership wouldn't run aground though.
benjipwns
Banned
Maybe you'd prefer his 2002 book*:
Or his co-authors 2011 publication:
http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/11/pdf/path_to_270.pdf
*
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Maybe you'd prefer his 2002 book*:
Or his co-authors 2011 publication:
http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/11/pdf/path_to_270.pdf
*
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008SMV8PI/?tag=neogaf0e-20
This book is a bit better and has more focus on demographicd
I think someone that was Pres will never run for Vice Pres entirely out of formality anyway. Even if the language were vague enough to support it.
If Clinton runs and gets elected though, we're going to see how people feel about the potential of future married couples both taking up political careers and succeeding each other as president. Because Bill will become the first First Gentleman or whatever we're going to call it, but also at the same time Bill will become the first President to also be a First Gentleman and Hillary will become the First Lady to become President.
Will we eventually in years to come end up with a ticket where one spouse runs as Pres and the other as Vice? hmm
If Clinton runs and gets elected though, we're going to see how people feel about the potential of future married couples both taking up political careers and succeeding each other as president. Because Bill will become the first First Gentleman or whatever we're going to call it, but also at the same time Bill will become the first President to also be a First Gentleman and Hillary will become the First Lady to become President.
Will we eventually in years to come end up with a ticket where one spouse runs as Pres and the other as Vice? hmm
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked