Support NeoGAF

[NeoXChaos]

She's already announced. Its just her first rally

Yeah but tomorrow could be looked at as a reset button announcement. She hasnt given any specifics or the "why" like other candidates. I look forward to it.

 

[thepotatoman]

If Hillary plans on coming out against the TPP, I don't think liberals in congress want her doing it yet. Liberals need the republicans to help them block it. Her coming out against it allows republicans to say they voted against Hillary instead of having to say they voted with Obama.

If she plans on coming out for it, she obviously should wait until after the whole thing instead of making her base hate her and blame her if it ends up passing.

 

[dabig2]

If Obama has his way he'll be 15 term pres.

250 terms. He will reign all throughout his 1000 years of darkness.

 

[Farmboy]

I've been looking for some sane, smart conservative sites/blogs/pundits to follow. Just to have my librul POV challenged on occasion, as well as see who these guys actually like (and loathe) in their primary (which is obviously going to be far more interesting than the dems').

I've been checking hotair.com, where the contributions of one Allahpundit have been informative. He's quite a smart guy (even if he is obviously Wrong About Everything, I hasten to add). I've learned that the Red Team doesn't view their field as a clown car at all (shocker); in fact they feel it's one of the strongest ever. Unsurprisingly they're really liking Rubio or Walker for the nom, hate Christie and don't-like-but-would-hold-their-nose-for Bush.

Any recommendations for other not-completely-crazy conservative commentators?

 

[HylianTom]

I still like FreeRepublic. Not because I find them particularly moderate or anything (many of the posters there remind me of family members and some of my classmates at Ole Miss), but because the site does a pretty good job aggregating conservative-themed news.

And speaking of.. there's a pretty good thread this afternoon illustrating one of the GOP's struggles with 2016: social issues.

Scott Walker: Prioritizing economics over social issues is just smart politics

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3299639/posts

They seem to loathe Rubio, for both past positions and for present perceived impurities. They harbor intense intense hate for Bush. And they adore Ted Cruz. Most other candidates are seen as also-rans, or folks who are just cluttering the field, in effect diluting the anti-Jeb vote.

Walker is curious; there seems to be a definite divide on him. Some trust him, pointing to what he's done in Wisconsin. Others don't like the signals he sometimes sends on the campaign trail, pointing to disappointments with other questionable politicians as a reason to distrust anyone who isn't a clear firebrand. This comment about social issues doesn't help their hesitation around him, and now we get to watch their armchair strategists fight among themselves.

 

[ivysaur12]

I've been looking for some sane, smart conservative sites/blogs/pundits to follow. Just to have my librul POV challenged on occasion, as well as see who these guys actually like (and loathe) in their primary (which is obviously going to be far more interesting than the dems').

I've been checking hotair.com, where the contributions of one Allahpundit have been informative. He's quite a smart guy (even if he is obviously Wrong About Everything, I hasten to add). I've learned that the Red Team doesn't view their field as a clown car at all (shocker); in fact they feel it's one of the strongest ever. Unsurprisingly they're really liking Rubio or Walker for the nom, hate Christie and don't-like-but-would-hold-their-nose-for Bush.

Any recommendations for other not-completely-crazy conservative commentators?

Wouldn't you have to?

If the Democrats were putting up de Blasio, O'Malley, Chafee, and who the fuck knows, Cynthia McKinney, I'd probably lie to myself too and say it's a strong year.

That being said, I think Rubio is a strong candidate. Much stronger than Walker. But I don't think he'll get the nomination in 2016. If Hillary wins, he absolutely should run in 2020.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Walker is right. No republican can win with a main focus on social issues - the country has moved too far away from the right on many of those issues (gay rights, weed, etc). The lesson of 2010 should be to focus on the economy. Once you get in office it'll be a lot easier to address social issues.

If a republican wins in 2016 I'd expect him to start out with tax cuts and de-regulation. Address the economy, then go after social issues. A 20 week abortion ban would be easy to pass. It's actually popular and I'd expect liberals to overreach/overreact and ultimately lose on it. But that's about all republicans could do on the social front without backlash. A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage won't happen. Maybe Walker would go after weed but that's about it.

 

[Manmademan]

Walker is right. No republican can win with a main focus on social issues - the country has moved too far away from the right on many of those issues (gay rights, weed, etc). The lesson of 2010 should be to focus on the economy. Once you get in office it'll be a lot easier to address social issues.

If a republican wins in 2016 I'd expect him to start out with tax cuts and de-regulation. Address the economy, then go after social issues. A 20 week abortion ban would be easy to pass. It's actually popular and I'd expect liberals to overreach/overreact and ultimately lose on it. But that's about all republicans could do on the social front without backlash. A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage won't happen. Maybe Walker would go after weed but that's about it.

I can't see how this one is a winning argument for them either.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I can't see how this one is a winning argument for them either.

1. why not? If a Republican wins in 2016, it will be on the economy. If it sucks, they benefit.

2. The hidden meaning of Hillary's logo? the rightward shift she would take the country.

 

[Manmademan]

why not?

Because if you want to argue how the economy is BAD, then you're going to have to start talking in specifics why 5% unemployment is not a good thing, why low gas prices don't count, and why the stock market at record highs is somehow not a good indicator.

All while democrats throw quotes like

ROMNEY: I cannot predict precisely what the rate would be at the end of one year. I can tell you that over a period of four years, by a virtue of the polices that we put in place, we get the unemployment rate down to 6 percent, perhaps a little lower.

Back at you.

"the economy" might have worked as an argument 5 years ago, but it's going to work about as well as railing against obamacare in 2015. Only partisan die hards will take you seriously, everyone else is going to think you're a jackass.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Didn't help Al Gore lol.

 

[Manmademan]

Didn't help Al Gore lol.

If Gore had the benefit of the demographic shift over the past 15 years that hillary does, he would have crushed Bush easily, instead of just winning the popular vote.

This isn't 2000, and there's a reason that Hillary is starting off by running to her left, not making a play for the middle.

 

[NeoXChaos]

It shows you how the EC has changed since the 1990 census for the 2000 race. If you reran the 2000 race today, Gore would lose 13 EC votes while Bush would gain 10 EC votes excluding Florida 256 to 253.

Without the Demographics and EC changes since the 2000 and 2010 census, Gore would be screwed. In 2000, if he had just won NH, he would have been President. Now? nope. Obama opened up a new path.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Why would you ignore demographic shifts but then reallocate the electoral college? The only reason the electoral college changes is demographic shifts.

 

[HylianTom]

Walker is right. No republican can win with a main focus on social issues - the country has moved too far away from the right on many of those issues (gay rights, weed, etc). The lesson of 2010 should be to focus on the economy. Once you get in office it'll be a lot easier to address social issues.

If a republican wins in 2016 I'd expect him to start out with tax cuts and de-regulation. Address the economy, then go after social issues. A 20 week abortion ban would be easy to pass. It's actually popular and I'd expect liberals to overreach/overreact and ultimately lose on it. But that's about all republicans could do on the social front without backlash. A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage won't happen. Maybe Walker would go after weed but that's about it.

My bet is that the GOP won't be able to avoid social issues, especially if SCOTUS grants cert to the abortion case that's currently stewing in the 5th Circuit. We'll also have to see how big the backlash to Obergefell will be among GOP candidates, state-level legislatures, and voters. The GOP controls a lot of state houses, and I don't know if they'll all be willing to resist trying some creative forms of litigation-producing temper tantrum over the next year.

And, fairly or unfairly, mainstream media outlets really seem to like covering these issues. Ben Carson says he's tired of the gay issue coming up, and I'm wondering if we'll eventually see other candidates/campaigns expressing some form of frustration as well (especially if Hillary continues her deliberately flamboyant embrace of these positions/causes).

 

[NeoXChaos]

Demographics shifts are there. Replicate the 2000 map and Gore is at 253 while Bush is at 256 excluding Florida, a shift from 246 with Bush and 266 with Gore pre-FL. Obvious with today's demographics he has more paths and it wouldn't come down to FL because of VA & NC becoming the new sing states 8 years later.

I'm just saying him winning NH based off of 2000 puts him to 271 whereby now it would put him at 257 from a mathematically standpoint barring the demographic changes above which would help him today.

 

[Oblivion]

No it doesn't. It often makes sense to finance a purchase by taking out a loan rather than buying outright, because it enables the purchaser to stretch out his or her purchasing power. So, people who could afford to make a purchase using cash will often finance the purchase instead. That doesn't seem to have been what Rubio did here (the house he co-owned was in foreclosure at one point, meaning he wasn't able to keep up with the payments), but my point is he clearly isn't saying that one should never take out loans.

Yes, I'm well aware that there are times where loans appear to be more economically efficient. The problem is Rubio doesn't seem to think so. At least, for the government anyway.

No, it's not. We're not talking about how he's dealt with public finances in the past. We're talking about how he's dealt with his own finances. And you're misstating Rubio's argument. He argues that the government should balance it's budget, just like families do, but he isn't saying that he's a model of prudent money management.

Dude, let's think about this for a sec. The problem that Rubio's addressing is that the government's running deficits right? I mean, if it were running surpluses, presumably there would be no need to balance the budget right? So if the government is running a deficit, it is spending more than it's taking in, and the only way for it do such a thing is to borrow money, right? Therefore, he is saying that the government should not be taking out loans/borrowing to pay for things just like the supposed families in his op-ed wouldn't do.

If Rubio is claiming, as you say, that it's fine if families take out loans, but not governments, then his thesis is even more inane than what it was presumed to be.

Also, too:

Washington politicians do not live by the same rules that virtually all families and small businesses play by. It is your responsibility to balance your budget, spend no more than what’s in your bank account, and have a plan to manage common expenses like student, home and car loans.

But in Washington, money is routinely borrowed from Peter to pay Paul. Or in America’s case, money is borrowed from China and others to pay for more government than we could ever afford. As a result, politicians have dug us in to a hole of $15 trillion in debt, with no end in sight. Now, more than ever, we need a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Surely we can agree that this is a rather stupid line, right? Where the hell does Rubio think the people who run these magical households get their money?

Watch the rest of the clip.

I did. And yes, Stewart mocked the NYT for criticizing Rubio on his student loans. The problem is that the NYT article didn't actually make any case as to why it was a bad thing for Rubio to have student loan debt, which is what Stewart was poking at.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Didn't help Al Gore lol.

Remember that the 2000 election happened during the early days of the dot com bust so people were getting nervous about the economy. If the internet bubble had held one for a couple of more months Gore would have cruised to the Presidency. He also ran an incredibly bad campaign and basically ignored Bill Clinton's legacy because of 'character' issues.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Remember that the 2000 election happened during the early days of the dot com bust so people were getting nervous about the economy. If the internet bubble had held one for a couple of more months Gore would have cruised to the Presidency. He also ran an incredibly bad campaign and basically ignored Bill Clinton's legacy because of 'character' issues.

That he did. The guy lost his home state. The people who knew him best rejected him. Such is the sad unfortunate story of the Gore 2000 campaign and its failure. 2016 will be different hopefully.

 

[Zona]

That he did. The guy lost his home state. The people who knew him best rejected him. Such is the sad unfortunate story of the Gore 2000 campaign and its failure. 2016 will be different hopefully.

And he Still won the popular vote and only lost the electoral collage by five. 2016 will be different if only because Hillary could get Gores exact percentages and probably win easily.

 

[Abinash117]

Hillary Clinton's launch speech .

 

[NeoXChaos]

Hillary Clinton's launch speech .

How was it?

EDIT: How is she going to get any of this passed a Republican House?

Democrats answer: "Run up score on electoral college, demoralize Republicans or do it in a 2nd term" @JmartinNYT

 

[Abinash117]

How was it?

EDIT: How is she going to get any of this passed a Republican House?

Democrats answer: "Run up score on electoral college, demoralize Republicans or do it in a 2nd term" @JmartinNYT

Well it seems she is trying to build up the democratic party in some states I expect her to help many candidates out to run.

 

[watershed]

Hillary Clinton's launch speech .

It was a strong speech. Short on specifics and pretty standard stuff for any democrat running in 2016. But strong contrasts with the republican field. The main issue I have is that Hilary being progressive in rhetoric sounds like she's just trying to catch up with the rest of the democratic party. That and I don't believe much of what she has to say about cracking down on wall street or fighting for the poorest americans.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Well it seems she is trying to build up the democratic party in some states I expect her to help many candidates out to run.

I'm optimistic in her chances of winning but the way she will win is giving me pause after reflections on gerrymandering, Turnout, electoral college, 2010, 2012 and 2014 results etc. I just dont know if the country will give her a big mandate in the form of a huge win next year to do what we progressives/liberals/moderates would like her to get done through Congress. Presently keeping expectations in check and hope for the best.

Good speech though. Crowd was 5500.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Best case scenario timeline:

2015 - Democrats hold Kentucky governor
2016 - Clinton wins by a huge margin, Democrats retake Senate, gain like 15 seats in the House (they need 30 for a majority). Hold Missouri/Montana governorships, pick up Indiana/North Carolina
2017 - Democrats hold Virginia governor, win New Jersey governor
2018 - Minimal House/Senate losses, hold Pennsylvania governorship, pick up: FL, IL, MA, MD, ME, MI OH, WI. NY governor election won by a Democrat who's not a backstabbing asshole
2020 - Clinton wins reelection, gain back several of the seats lost in 2020 (IA, CO, NC and also ME)
2022 - Democrats win House majority under new lines, Clinton passes a bunch of liberal legislation in her last two years
2024 - President Castro

Dream scenario:

2016 - Clinton wins by such a huge margin Democrats are swept into House/Senate majorities right away and she gets to pass shit

 

[Metaphoreus]

Yes, I'm well aware that there are times where loans appear to be more economically efficient. The problem is Rubio doesn't seem to think so. At least, for the government anyway.

The Balanced Budget Amendment he supported included exceptions from the requirement for a balanced budget.

Dude, let's think about this for a sec. The problem that Rubio's addressing is that the government's running deficits right? I mean, if it were running surpluses, presumably there would be no need to balance the budget right? So if the government is running a deficit, it is spending more than it's taking in, and the only way for it do such a thing is to borrow money, right? Therefore, he is saying that the government should not be taking out loans/borrowing to pay for things just like the supposed families in his op-ed wouldn't do.

First off, it's not true that the only way for the federal government to spend more than it takes in is to borrow money. If only empty vessel were still around, I'm sure he'd have corrected you on this point by now.

Second, he's obviously not saying that the families shouldn't take out loans, as I pointed out initially. And, given his support for an amendment that permits a supermajority of Congress to pass a budget that isn't balanced, he obviously isn't saying that the government should never borrow money, either. Presumably, his problem is not that the government borrows at all, but the extent to which it is indebted.

Surely we can agree that this is a rather stupid line, right? Where the hell does Rubio think the people who run these magical households get their money?

Mostly not by loans?

I did. And yes, Stewart mocked the NYT for criticizing Rubio on his student loans. The problem is that the NYT article didn't actually make any case as to why it was a bad thing for Rubio to have student loan debt, which is what Stewart was poking at.

That clip is not porn, Oblivion. Quit skipping around to find the parts that you like.

 

[ivysaur12]

Best case scenario timeline:

2015 - Democrats hold Kentucky governor
2016 - Clinton wins by a huge margin, Democrats retake Senate, gain like 15 seats in the House (they need 30 for a majority). Hold Missouri/Montana governorships, pick up Indiana/North Carolina
2017 - Democrats hold Virginia governor, win New Jersey governor
2018 - Minimal House/Senate losses, hold Pennsylvania governorship, pick up: FL, IL, MA, MD, ME, MI OH, WI. NY governor election won by a Democrat who's not a backstabbing asshole
2020 - Clinton wins reelection, gain back several of the seats lost in 2020 (IA, CO, NC and also ME)
2022 - Democrats win House majority under new lines, Clinton passes a bunch of liberal legislation in her last two years
2024 - President Heitkamp

Dream scenario:

2016 - Clinton wins by such a huge margin Democrats are swept into House/Senate majorities right away and she gets to pass shit

Fixed.

 

[NeoXChaos]

If she wins the popular vote and House popular vote like Obama did and still is unable to get House, then I am going to Diablos. The funny thing about NJ is that Christie's Lt Governor who will probably be the nominee in 2017 is going to have a hard time distancing herself from him. NJ is doing terrible right now and Christie isnt doing any favors with a failed Presidential Campaign hangover bleeding into 2017.

EDIT: If GAF is around in 10 years. I am going to keep Aaron's post as reference to see if it pans out overtime.

 

[HylianTom]

I'll fall on the pessimistic side here with my prediction: no Democratic House until at least 2022.

The big boogieman in my head right now: when is the next big economic downturn? I'm pretty confident that we'll have smooth economic sailing into 2016, but 2020 is a big question mark.

 

[thepotatoman]

Best case scenario timeline:

2015 - Democrats hold Kentucky governor
2016 - Clinton wins by a huge margin, Democrats retake Senate, gain like 15 seats in the House (they need 30 for a majority). Hold Missouri/Montana governorships, pick up Indiana/North Carolina
2017 - Democrats hold Virginia governor, win New Jersey governor
2018 - Minimal House/Senate losses, hold Pennsylvania governorship, pick up: FL, IL, MA, MD, ME, MI OH, WI. NY governor election won by a Democrat who's not a backstabbing asshole
2020 - Clinton wins reelection, gain back several of the seats lost in 2020 (IA, CO, NC and also ME)
2022 - Democrats win House majority under new lines, Clinton passes a bunch of liberal legislation in her last two years
2024 - President Castro

Dream scenario:

2016 - Clinton wins by such a huge margin Democrats are swept into House/Senate majorities right away and she gets to pass shit

If absolutely nothing changes between now and 2024, it's a pretty safe prediction. Problem is something unpredictable always happens when you're look at timescales that long.

Fixed.

Nah man, it'll be President Booker.

 

[ivysaur12]

Heidi Heitkamp is a goddess how dare you question her.

Also a conservative political blog in North Dakota told me that what we know about Sheri is that she's "thirsty for power and blindly ambitious".

 

[NeoXChaos]

worst case scenario timeline:

2015 - Democrats lose Kentucky governor
2016 - Clinton loses by a small margin, Democrats do not retain Senate, lose NV and CO, pick up WI and IL gain a net 8 in the House (they need 30 for a majority). Lose Missouri/Montana governorships, do not pick up Indiana/North Carolina
2017 - Democrats lose Virginia governor, win New Jersey governor
2018 - Historic House/10 Senate losses, lose Pennsylvania governorship, do not pick up: FL, IL, MA, MD, ME, MI OH, WI. Lose senate seats in OH, FL, PA, WI & VA. Lose MT, MO, ND, IN, WV. 2020 - Walker wins reelection, do not gain back several of the seats lost in 2014 (IA, CO, NC and also ME)
2022 - Democrats do not win House majority under new lines, Walker continues to passes a bunch of conservative legislation in his last two years
2024 - President Rubio

Doom scenario:

2016 - Clinton lose by such a huge margin Republicans are swept into House/Senate majorities right away and Walker gets to pass very bad shit. Replace Ginsberg and Bryer.

Fixed

 

[Oblivion]

First off, it's not true that the only way for the federal government to spend more than it takes in is to borrow money. If only empty vessel were still around, I'm sure he'd have corrected you on this point by now.

You know, I felt like adding an asterisk to that comment when I posted it, but decided not to at the last minute. CLEARLY THIS WAS A MISTAKE.

The Balanced Budget Amendment he supported included exceptions from the requirement for a balanced budget.

Second, he's obviously not saying that the families shouldn't take out loans, as I pointed out initially. And, given his support for an amendment that permits a supermajority of Congress to pass a budget that isn't balanced, he obviously isn't saying that the government should never borrow money, either. Presumably, his problem is not that the government borrows at all, but the extent to which it is indebted.

Holy spit, dude. These "exceptions" don't prove a damn thing. The problem is that you're trying to slink out of this by taking a literal view of everything. Do I think that Rubio feels that there should be zero paths to borrowing money under any circumstances whatsoever? Of course not. Do I think that Rubio (and the rest of the Republican party) want to make things difficult enough that borrowing money is for all intents and purposes, almost impossible to begin with? Hell yes.

It's why we have so few amendments to the constitution, because while sure it's technically possible to add one, it's difficult as fuck to do so in practice.

Mostly not by loans?

You are being extra adorable today, aren't you? Okay, where are they getting the money to pay for things that exceeds the cost of something that their usual source of revenue wouldn't cover?

That clip is not porn, Oblivion. Quit skipping around to find the parts that you like.

Actually, my good man, I did watch the whole thing the first time around, but hey, I'll do it again if you desire. Here's what Stewart covered:

- parking tickets (Rubio only had 4 in 17 years. Snore)
- student loans (Jon Stewart is unopposed to people getting college education)
- his house (seems like a pretty standard affair)
- the speedboat and the SUV (he leased the latter)

There, happy? I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove though. Because again, Stewart wasn't focused on Rubio's own hypocrisy. He was focused on mocking the Times for purchases he didn't think were particularly extravagant.


Oh and for the record, I never skip through porn videos. Some of us do appeciate things like story. It's called "being cultured", Meta.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Even if nothing changes between now and then, like others have said, I simply don't buy the idea that we won't have a GOP President by 2024. I feel after Hillary is done, America will be tired of 16 years of Dems in the White House

 

[Metaphoreus]

Holy spit, dude. These "exceptions" don't prove a damn thing. The problem is that you're trying to slink out of this by taking a literal view of everything. Do I think that Rubio feels that there should be zero paths to borrowing money under any circumstances whatsoever? Of course not. Do I think that Rubio (and the rest of the Republican party) want to make things difficult enough that borrowing money is for all intents and purposes, almost impossible to begin with? Hell yes.

You're complaining that I'm reading what you're saying. You said:

Rubio doesn't seem to think [there are times where loans appear to be more economically efficient] . . . for the government.

That the amendment he supported permitted exceptions based on supermajority-vote with no prerequisite objective triggers gives the lie to your claim. You can't now pretend you meant something else, and pass the blame in misspeaking off to me. I read what you said and responded. What you said was wrong. And now you're trying to slink out of your ill-considered comment by blaming me for taking you at your word.

C'mon, dude.

You are being extra adorable today, aren't you? Okay, where are they getting the money to pay for things that exceeds the cost of something that their usual source of revenue wouldn't cover?

Overtime? Bonuses? Gifts? Savings? Loans? Theft? Some or all of the above?

What's the point of your riddle? Rubio framed his complaint in terms of the excessiveness of federal borrowing ("more government than we could ever afford" and "no end in sight"). What's more, his "borrowing from Peter to pay Paul" came immediately after his acknowledgment of families having "common expenses like student, home and car loans," making your interpretation--under which Rubio denies that families borrow money--completely unsupportable.

Actually, my good man, I did watch the whole thing the first time around, but hey, I'll do it again if you desire. Here's what Stewart covered:

- parking tickets (Rubio only had 4 in 17 years. Snore)
- student loans (Jon Stewart is unopposed to people getting college education)
- his house (seems like a pretty standard affair)
- the speedboat and the SUV (he leased the latter)

I'm surprised to hear you watched the whole thing the first time around, because when you first mentioned it, you said:

In the end, there's nothing here worth writing about, a fact acknowledged even by comedians whose sole job on television is to make jokes at Republicans' expense.

Also, Stewart was mocking the NYT's reporting that he and his wife got 17 traffic tickets, though he himself only contributed 4 of those tickets.

And, even the second time you mentioned it, you only expanded it to:

I did. And yes, Stewart mocked the NYT for criticizing Rubio on his student loans. The problem is that the NYT article didn't actually make any case as to why it was a bad thing for Rubio to have student loan debt, which is what Stewart was poking at.

(As an aside, you misunderstood Stewart's complaint. He wasn't pretending the NYT made a case against student loan debt. He criticized the paper for making paying back student loans seem like a negative. Stewart's views on students obtaining a college education are irrelevant, and I'm not sure why you bring them up.)

Now we're back where we began, where even comedians paid to make fun of Republicans on TV are left questioning the significance of the NYT's revelations. The fact that Stewart targeted the NYT and not Rubio is precisely my point.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Even if nothing changes between now and then, like others have said, I simply don't buy the idea that we won't have a GOP President by 2024. I feel after Hillary is done, America will be tired of 16 years of Dems in the White House

It's certainly probable. We might be able to squeeze one more term out.

The Republican Party of 2024 will need to be radically different though. No LGBT hate, no immigrant hate, support for public health care and education funding, etc.

 

[HylianTom]

It's certainly probable. We might be able to squeeze one more term out.

The Republican Party of 2024 will need to be radically different though. No LGBT hate, no immigrant hate, support for public health care and education funding, etc.

Moderating on issues of science wouldn't hurt either. Democrats are going to snark about Louisiana schools using the Bible in science classes, and certain segments of the electorate that would otherwise look at the GOP seriously are going to take one look at stories like this and say, "umm.. what the fuck?!"

It’s official: Louisiana public schools are using the Book of Genesis in high school science classes
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/11/its...ok_of_genesis_in_high_school_science_classes/

edit:
And if Hillary's in place through January 2025, there's a good chance that judicial appointees will see to it that social conservatism is placed into a coma. Seeing how the GOP's base copes with such a new reality would be fascinating.
(and conversely, it'd be morbidly fascinating to see how a possilbly-socially-leftward-moving America would cope with Ginsburg and Breyer being replaced by Scalia twins)

 

[NeoXChaos]

Can we get through 2016 first. We are getting too far ahead of ourselves. I did the same thing a month ago but when Aaron does it he gets a response lol.

Expanding on my point. Here is what needs to go well for the Democrats.

2015: Hold KY Governors Office. Pick up legislature seats. Pick up seats in the MS and LA legislature. By some miracle they win in LA against Vitter than awesome.

2016: Hold the Presidency, Pick up the Senate and cut down seats from Republicans in the House in PVI D+0-5, R+5 and by miracle pick up R+10 districts. Hold MO, WV Governorship and pick up NC. Hold the obvious rest safe D ones.

2017: Hold VA and pick up NJ Governorship.

2018: The Big Tsunami. Hope that an incumbent Hillary dosent suffer through 2010 Obama redux. Pick up NV, NM, WI, IA, MI, FL, MA, ME, MD, IL, OH. Hold CO. If anything cut down Republican seats across the country in legislatures and hope they can salvage enough seats in the U.S House to somehow win or get close. If not, they are gonna have to hold the keys to the Governors Houses in critical swing states for redistricting. Some states like KS they may never get but they simply need to play everywhere.

2020: Hold Presidency, Hold Senate or Pick Up in case of 2018 shellacking. Wait till 2022 for restricting to take effect hoping by then their midterm problem is solved or at-least figured out.

tdr; simply a prediction and its super early. The mechanics of it all should rightfully be left up to strategist when the time comes to sort it all out. In the end, it might take years.

 

[Chichikov]

Even if nothing changes between now and then, like others have said, I simply don't buy the idea that we won't have a GOP President by 2024. I feel after Hillary is done, America will be tired of 16 years of Dems in the White House

I think Wall Street blow up the economy again and it's blamed on the sitting president, like it always does and the GOP wins.

I think even a normal recession (exacerbated by the fact that you can't do deficit spending no more) would make a whole lot people say "fuck the poor, save me free market jesus, tax cuts for all!".

 

[Aaron Strife]

Can we get through 2016 first. We are getting too far ahead of ourselves. I did the same thing a month ago but when Aaron does it he gets a response lol.

Well how about that.

It's because I've got the pedigree.

I'd insert the 2012 map I drew in Sept. 2012 but I'm on my phone.

 

[HylianTom]

I think Wall Street blow up the economy again and it's blamed on the sitting president, like it always does and the GOP wins.

I think even a normal recession (exacerbated by the fact that you can't do deficit spending no more) would make a whole lot people say "fuck the poor, save me free market jesus, tax cuts for all!".

Yup. Every month that goes by without incident makes me feel a tiny bit better, but we still have a long way to go just to get through 2016. I have almost zero confidence that we'd get through 2020 without some sort of downturn.

On the other hand, I'm wondering how close we are to a demographic point where Generic Democrat would defeat Generic Republican in all but the most extreme of depressed economic conditions. The GOP was incredibly confident in 2012 about 8% unemployment indicating a sure loss for Obama ("no one has ever been re-elected in these economic conditions!" they'd boast), but their metrics failed..

 

[B-Dubs]

Well how about that.

It's because I've got the pedigree.

I'd insert the 2012 map I drew in Sept. 2012 but I'm on my phone.

I can't wait to see what the 2016 map will be drawn on/with.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Predicting so far into the future is a fools errand. I seem to remember many of you predicting all the great things Obama would get done in his second term. Ultimately he didn't get a single thing accomplished.

Junk mortgages are once again on the rise, the stock market is going crazy...if anything is certain it's that we'll have another financial crash. Outside of that who knows what will happen. Since it seems like Hillary will win next year, the crash is likely to happen on her watch. If that happens she won't get re-elected.

The other certainty is that republicans will hold the house for the foreseeable future.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Well how about that.

It's because I've got the pedigree.

I'd insert the 2012 map I drew in Sept. 2012 but I'm on my phone.

We have plenty of time for your map in Poligaf 2016 |OT|. I will be the one to have the final EC map correct. It will change depending on the Republican nominee.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Predicting so far into the future is a fools errand. I seem to remember many of you predicting all the great things Obama would get done in his second term. Ultimately he didn't get a single thing accomplished.

Junk mortgages are once again on the rise, the stock market is going crazy...if anything is certain it's that we'll have another financial crash. Outside of that who knows what will happen. Since it seems like Hillary will win next year, the crash is likely to happen on her watch. If that happens she won't get re-elected.

The other certainty is that republicans will hold the house for the foreseeable future.

He's gotten a lot accomplished via executive action. Obviously there are limits to what he can do alone vs. what could be done if Congress were willing to legislate these things, but extending benefits to LGBT spouses, cutting carbon emissions, deferred action on immigration, raising overtime pay, net neutrality, small steps on gun control are all rather significant. Not to mention on a foreign policy front normalizing relationships with Cuba and coming close to a deal with Iran on nuclear arms.

347 is Clinton's base EV count as far as I'm concerned. I must stress that my post was a best case scenario - I'm quite sure the next decade will bring good and bad news for the Democrats.

 

[RastaMentality]

Jeb! for 2016

No mention of Bush in that truly tragic logo.

 

[Frank the Great]

Jeb! for 2016



No mention of Bush in that truly tragic logo.

I feel so excited for Jeb due to that exclamation point. Brilliant.

 

[Plinko]

Jeb! for 2016



No mention of Bush in that truly tragic logo.

I'm flabbergasted that pretty much everything he has done so far has been wrong. Even this horrible 1990s logo.

It's like he doesn't even want to be president.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I wish I could get a job making logos for political candidates. It seems so easy.