2016 U.S Election Thread

I Was leaning towards a Marco Vs Hillary but with this disgraceful shambolic immigration bill I think Marco is out of the picture.
Tagg romney at the moment might have a better shot than Marco.

 

I get Unifier's point, I'm just not seeing it as a bad thing. I wouldn't have voted for Obama if he was a dunce, but I think he stacked up favorably against McCain in most of the usual measures. And, sheeehya, there can be no one more qualified than Hillary now unless it would be Thomas Jefferson.

 

wish ill...is one thing. Talking assassination....is anti-American.

 

No one agrees on what it means to be American any more.

 

Social conservatives, while still influential, are losing out to the Tea Party (fiscal conservatives) as we have seen recently with the GOP finally giving up on gay marriage as a focal point of campaigning. They will still do lip service to it in some areas but if not by 2016 then definitely by 2020 you will see GOP nominees supporting the Libertarian view that each state should determine its own policy.

Liberals will continue to be just as obnoxious as they have always been and demand they get freebies but not pay for them. Demand that other people pay higher tax rates. They will continue to tell people how to live their lives and what to eat and breathe etc.

Rand Paul will not be the nominee. He has said some bizarre things in the past like why he didn't support school segregation because of some states right issue which is just bonkers. The constitution clearly grants the rights of life, liberty and property in the fifth amendment (due process). If a state is denying those rights then it is incumbent on the Feds to intervene and restore them.

 

I'm pretty sure most agree that being an American does NOT mean talking "assassination" because you've lost some elections and your ideology and political Party is in the midsts of a civil war of its own making.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't buy this "Tea Party aren't Social Cons, Social Cons aren't Tea Party" jive.....Palin, Michele Bachmann, etc. wouldn't have jumped on the TP bandwagon if TP was libertarian and didn't oppose abortion, gay rights, separation of church and state, etc.

 

I have observed the political order change over the course of many decades. I have touched the consciousness of five generations of Americans. I know something about historical precedent, human nature and human behavior. That gives the future some measure of predictability in broad outlines. It is a virtual certainty that political assassination will again emerge in America. The polity is coming apart at the seams. There is no source of national identity or unity. The culture has fragmented into a million separate parts. There are too many moving parts to the Fed's perpetual motion machine.

 

8 years ago, after Dubya was re-elected and the GOP held both Houses of Congress?

I'll bet you were singing a different tune.

 

Then you are willfully going out of your way to completely ignore historical facts. The Tea Party had its genesis with the TARP and grew exponentially after the Stimulus bill. The GOP position on gay marriage hadn't changed since then so if the Tea Party people were all such big social conservatives then why were many of them former Democrats. Once again unless you are completely ignoring what actually happened the Tea Party arose out of ECONOMIC and FISCAL policy, not social policy. If you bother to gather some information on them you will find that there is alot of friction among different Tea Party groups because most of them want to focus on deficits and spending and some of them wanted to get involved in social policy. Most of them however are concerned about the fiscal issues and not the social issues. Chris Christie is a super start in Tea Party circles and yet he is pro choice.

Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann simply labelled themselves as such to garner more votes. In case you haven't noticed they have been rejected by the majority of Republican and conservitive voters.

I suppose you also buy Chris Matthews argument that all Tea Party people are racist because they don't like Obama. It couldn't possibly be because of the stimulus spending and the incredibly poor performance on the economy. No, it must be because all Tea Partiers are racist.

Another thing liberals are completely clueless on are the Koch brothers. Just to show you how ill informed liberals are, go out and ask every liberal friend what the Koch brothers stance on gay marriage is. I guarantee you that 9 out of 10 of them will say that they are against it. I couldn't find a single liberal in my school that was even aware that the Koch brothers support gay rights. Yet that is the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) line that is constantly peddled by the left.

 

Even though the various Tea Party organizations have been quite open about their agenda's... for years, it still amazes me that supposedly informed liberals simply think of the Tea Party is Moral Majority Part 2. The Tea Party agenda has always been fiscal and budgetary, not abortion, prayer in schools, or whatever else you might think. There is obviously a crossover of people, but not agendas. The Tea Party has done a good job of keeping their agenda pretty clearly about the size and scope of government and fiscal issues, not Jesus or whatever you imagine their real agenda is.

 

No, its not that she is the first woman, its that she isn't a man. Being president isn't a physical job so Rand Paul, a man, shouldn't run. He should be trying for a job moving furniture around the White house for Hillary. It could get his mind off of the devastating societal changes where men work together with women to clean the house and both women and men open doors for people.

 

Find me a poll on Tea Party members...and their views on abortion and gay rights.

I SERIOUSLY doubt it's 60-70-80% "Who cares? All we care about is deficits and debt".....but willing to be proven wrong.

 

True that. Not that they ever did.

 

Clearly you didn't understand what I wrote.

"There is obviously a crossover of people..." Now, what did you think that meant? There has been polling to suggest that up to 70% of Tea Partiers are also Social Conservatives. People can be more than one thing. But the structure and organizations of the Tea Party are not social issue organizations. They are small government , fiscal conservative organizations promoting those issues.

I think maybe because for the left, the social issues are THE main issues, that you can't conceive of an agenda dedicated to things like budgets, and public policy...oww; probably makes your heads hurt. But gay marriage and abortion? That's what it's all about for you guys.

 

2016?

Somebody shoot me...

 

I am not sure aboiut Hillary being a woman.

 

Then why was it the tea party in DE who was leading the opposition to gay marriage? The movement here is very social conservative and is primarily church based.

 

Not being in Delaware or keeping up with it's latest news, I don't know what you're talking about.

 

The tea party groups in this state are indistinguishable from the Moral Majority. They are heavily focused on social issues.

 

Well I couldn't tell that from Google. On the other hand, you are pretty getting detailed documentation directly from the IRS on Delaware Tea Party groups so you probably have more inside info than I do.

 

Kennedy is not interested in running for office. She had clinton's seat handed to her and refused.

Hillary's run in 2016 will depend entirely on her health. If she's "feeling it" she will run and win.

- - - Updated - - -

First, Democrats do the same thing when they have the power.

Second, the ability to do this will become more difficult as the demos of the nation change to an ever younger, ever browner electorate.

 

I agree with you it's over for her before it starts. While the low information voters may be uninformed as to her part of Benghazi and the cover up, it will ALL come flooding out during the election cycle. It's over for her before it starts, PLEASE run her for President in 2016.

 

Considering the fact that the GOP is moving towards the direction of Jon Hunstman, I'd have to go with. . .

Jon Huntsman.

As for the Demoncrats. . .

The current crop of scandals will prove useful for political points, as will the many failed initiatives of Obama's presidency.

And if Benghazi blows up with some stunning revelation involving Hillary Clinton, all bets are off for her -- not to mention the Lewinsky book which is scheduled for a 2014 release.

 

Unless the GOP begins to court Christie, and somehow manages to begin paying attention to women, youth, minorities, and moderate members of the base.....there is very little chance of a victory in 2016 (IMHO).

Basically, they will need to re-engage those of us who have turned our heads in disgust, as well as begin attracting enough new folks to replace all the old white folk who died.

 

kind of hoping old Hillary does decide to run, if she gets the nomination the GOP would have to work real hard to lose

Christie is in like Flint, seen his approval ratings in Democratic NJ lately ? He was smart not to pull a Palin and abandon NJ halfway through his first term,. Now after being a hero with Sandy and showing he can work with the Dems he is a shoe in

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/05/christies_net_approval_rating.html