jeffro2000
Main Eventer
Joined on: May 16, 2011 14:23:29 GMT -5
Posts: 1,858
|
Post by jeffro2000 on Nov 7, 2012 16:12:01 GMT -5
I hope Rahm Emanuel runs in 2016, just so I can see him literally kick the crap out of his opponent. That guy cracks me up.
I am hoping Obama gets something accomplished the next 4 years. Hoping for a run like Clinton where he struggled at first got re-elected, and accomplished some things with a divided government. Different circumstances, but hoping for the best.
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Nov 7, 2012 16:12:49 GMT -5
What's funny is that in your first sentence you say that you lean left, yet everything you wrote after that is almost verbatim criticism from those on the far right. Which means that having a socialist president is probably pretty different to me than being liberal don't you think? I'm pro choice, pro gay marriage, I strongly believe in Unions, but I believe a lot of that has been trumped by a much bigger problem. Which most people seem to be ignoring. But please continue to tell me all about your black and white view of the world and how I should be labeled. Hillary won't be running 4 years from now. She will be 69, and she has said she won't run again. Biden being almost 74 for the next election, I don't think he will run either. I think she has said that to this point to avoid the media blitz during Obama's re-election, personally. She has garnered too much support imo to be ignored. If she wants it, I think she's the clearcut candidate. I personally don't think her age will be much of a deterrent. You could certainly be right though, but I just can't imagine she'll not try it. Not to mention what it would mean historically for women.
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Nov 7, 2012 17:19:53 GMT -5
Honestly I think her best chance was with Obama. I get the feeling she doesn't want it anymore. And honestly she is almost beyond the Presidency at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Nov 7, 2012 17:22:48 GMT -5
How is Secretary of State beyond the President? If she doesn't run then the Democrats have a problem. They don't really have anyone waiting in the wings to run really. If she doesn't run and Biden doesn't run who do they pick? The Republicans have Santorum still. Ryan will be four years older. Gingrich proved he can still be a viable candidate. They've got some guys. None of them are particularly appealing, but they are still there.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Nov 7, 2012 17:47:19 GMT -5
How is Secretary of State beyond the President? If she doesn't run then the Democrats have a problem. They don't really have anyone waiting in the wings to run really. If she doesn't run and Biden doesn't run who do they pick? The Republicans have Santorum still. Ryan will be four years older. Gingrich proved he can still be a viable candidate. They've got some guys. None of them are particularly appealing, but they are still there. I think they are breeding new comers like Julian Castro to run in '16.. they certainly don't want Biden running
|
|
|
Post by robinsonben36 on Nov 7, 2012 17:58:58 GMT -5
From what I've heard, Hilary isn't interested in running in 2015.
|
|
|
Post by Calcifer Boheme on Nov 7, 2012 18:00:22 GMT -5
How is Secretary of State beyond the President? If she doesn't run then the Democrats have a problem. They don't really have anyone waiting in the wings to run really. If she doesn't run and Biden doesn't run who do they pick? The Republicans have Santorum still. Ryan will be four years older. Gingrich proved he can still be a viable candidate. They've got some guys. None of them are particularly appealing, but they are still there. I think they are breeding new comers like Julian Castro to run in '16.. they certainly don't want Biden running I see both Castro and Mark Warner throwing their hats in the ring. I don't know who would get it though.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Nov 7, 2012 19:04:02 GMT -5
I think they are breeding new comers like Julian Castro to run in '16.. they certainly don't want Biden running I see both Castro and Mark Warner throwing their hats in the ring. I don't know who would get it though. If recent history is any indication than the obvious choice is Castro.. people on the left really saw the sparks with him.. similarly, on the right, Ted Cruz from Texas and Marco Rubio from Florida are potential candidates for republicans
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 23, 2024 20:29:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2012 19:06:12 GMT -5
I hope Gary Johnson runs as a libertarian again. I'd do some hardcore campaigning just to get his name out there. If he doesn't run, though, I'd love to see Rand Paul run.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Nov 7, 2012 19:12:34 GMT -5
To be fair I think most of us predicted Romney getting the nomination and Obama winning. And I disagree, I feel that the best way for the Republicans to win isn't to send out an extremist or TEA Party fan, but to stick to the centre ground. I think Romney lost simply because he wasn't a good enough candidate, and if Republicans put up a TEA Partier in 2016 then they'll lose again. First it was Bachmann, then Cain, then Gingrich, then Perry, then Santorum... All the while, the media was telling people, "IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A NEW FRONTRUNNER!" but anyone with any sense of reality knew that it was going to be Mitt all along. To me, the Republicans have to put up someone who can take votes from the Democrats. They haven't done that in many, many years. The landscape of the country has changed since Ronald Reagan was in office and the Republicans don't seem to be interested in putting up candidates who change with it. At the moment, there are unquestionably more Democrats than Republicans in the United States. So if the Republicans want to win, they have to be able to tap into that lead. That's why I believed, and still do, that Ron Paul was the only person on the Republican side who had ANY chance against Obama. Call him "crazy" or whatever you want, but the hardcore righties would've voted for him because of his economic and pro-life stances. Maybe they wouldn't have loved him like they would have a Santorum, but they would've swallowed their frustration and filled in the circle next to his name if it was against Obama. Also, keep in mind that Gary Johnson would've been off the ballot (he would have dropped out if Paul received the Republican nomination), which would've given Paul an additional 1% that Romney had no chance of touching. But the big key with Ron Paul is that, as we saw in head-to-head polls, he took votes from Obama. As crazy as it sounds given their complete opposite views on almost every major issue, there was a significant percentage of Democrats who liked or at least sympathized with Ron Paul's views. I, personally, know at least 10 people who voted for Obama yesterday that would have voted for Paul if he was the Republican nominee. As we all know, though, Paul never had a real chance. He was shut out by the media who consistently lied about his chances and told voters that he "had no delegates" despite every indication that he was accumulating them throughout the process. The biggest reason for his name not being on the ballot was that he isn't bought and paid for by the banks like Romney and Obama are. Goldman Sachs wins again. Thanks for playing, everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on Nov 7, 2012 20:13:52 GMT -5
The Republicans need to tell the Religious Right to go themselves. Say the same to Rush Limbaugh and other idiots.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Nov 7, 2012 20:38:15 GMT -5
The Republicans need to tell the Religious Right to go themselves. Say the same to Rush Limbaugh and other idiots. that wont work why alienate your base like that?
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Nov 7, 2012 22:55:05 GMT -5
Ron Paul had no chance of beating Obama. But we've had this argument already.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Nov 7, 2012 22:58:44 GMT -5
Ron Paul had no chance of beating Obama. But we've had this argument already. You kept saying "they" would make a third party. But they wouldn't have been on the ballot in almost every state. So I'd venture to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Nov 7, 2012 23:06:17 GMT -5
To be fair I think most of us predicted Romney getting the nomination and Obama winning. And I disagree, I feel that the best way for the Republicans to win isn't to send out an extremist or TEA Party fan, but to stick to the centre ground. I think Romney lost simply because he wasn't a good enough candidate, and if Republicans put up a TEA Partier in 2016 then they'll lose again. First it was Bachmann, then Cain, then Gingrich, then Perry, then Santorum... All the while, the media was telling people, "IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A NEW FRONTRUNNER!" but anyone with any sense of reality knew that it was going to be Mitt all along. To me, the Republicans have to put up someone who can take votes from the Democrats. They haven't done that in many, many years. The landscape of the country has changed since Ronald Reagan was in office and the Republicans don't seem to be interested in putting up candidates who change with it. At the moment, there are unquestionably more Democrats than Republicans in the United States. So if the Republicans want to win, they have to be able to tap into that lead. That's why I believed, and still do, that Ron Paul was the only person on the Republican side who had ANY chance against Obama. Call him "crazy" or whatever you want, but the hardcore righties would've voted for him because of his economic and pro-life stances. Maybe they wouldn't have loved him like they would have a Santorum, but they would've swallowed their frustration and filled in the circle next to his name if it was against Obama. Also, keep in mind that Gary Johnson would've been off the ballot (he would have dropped out if Paul received the Republican nomination), which would've given Paul an additional 1% that Romney had no chance of touching. But the big key with Ron Paul is that, as we saw in head-to-head polls, he took votes from Obama. As crazy as it sounds given their complete opposite views on almost every major issue, there was a significant percentage of Democrats who liked or at least sympathized with Ron Paul's views. I, personally, know at least 10 people who voted for Obama yesterday that would have voted for Paul if he was the Republican nominee. As we all know, though, Paul never had a real chance. He was shut out by the media who consistently lied about his chances and told voters that he "had no delegates" despite every indication that he was accumulating them throughout the process. The biggest reason for his name not being on the ballot was that he isn't bought and paid for by the banks like Romney and Obama are. Goldman Sachs wins again. Thanks for playing, everyone. In all honesty, I would love to hear your (and even Hulks) opinion on the thought of Jeb Bush running in 2016. I know he's said on more then one occasion that he's not interested "at the moment" to run and a lot of people *might* be turned off by the Bush name but a point you brought up in the above statement is how the Republicans can "steal" votes away from the Democrats. One of Jebs "positives" so to speak as Gov of Florida was how well liked he was by the Latino voters. Could Jeb be the guy that gets the Conservative/Right Wing vote but also sway the minority vote heavily to the Republican side as well? As racist as its going to sound (yet factual) unless the Democrats run another African American, I expect that side of the minority vote to have a great drop off (just going by historical numbers) so the Latino vote could be even more of a factor next election.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Nov 7, 2012 23:17:05 GMT -5
LoL no to Jeb Bush.
|
|
|
Post by BCizzle on Nov 8, 2012 0:16:48 GMT -5
The Republicans need to tell the Religious Right to go themselves. Say the same to Rush Limbaugh and other idiots. that wont work why alienate your base like that? I certainly hope those right wing idiots are not the Republican party's base. The weird thing to me is that they constantly upset people who are in the middle, independent or undecided, by trying to appeal to these ultra conservative goofs, and yet they still just narrowly lost the election. If they had just picked a Republican candidate who really was a moderate, not some wishy washy clown like Romney, I think they would have had a great chance of winning. The support for Obama is pretty weak yet he still won - that's telling you the Republicans done messed up. They need to stop listening to the loudmouth fringe voters and appeal to the middle. I figure it's like a bell curve, it's a lot meatier in the middle of the road and yet they keep kissing the outliers' asses with this pro-life and Tea Party crap. If they had picked a guy like Ron Paul, though, he would have been destroyed. He does not appeal to mainstream America at all.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Nov 8, 2012 1:06:26 GMT -5
that wont work why alienate your base like that? I certainly hope those right wing idiots are not the Republican party's base. The weird thing to me is that they constantly upset people who are in the middle, independent or undecided, by trying to appeal to these ultra conservative goofs, and yet they still just narrowly lost the election. If they had just picked a Republican candidate who really was a moderate, not some wishy washy clown like Romney, I think they would have had a great chance of winning. The support for Obama is pretty weak yet he still won - that's telling you the Republicans done messed up. They need to stop listening to the loudmouth fringe voters and appeal to the middle. I figure it's like a bell curve, it's a lot meatier in the middle of the road and yet they keep kissing the outliers' asses with this pro-life and Tea Party crap. If they had picked a guy like Ron Paul, though, he would have been destroyed. He does not appeal to mainstream America at all. Paul polled better than every Republican against Obama. Your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by cattlemutilation on Nov 8, 2012 3:55:07 GMT -5
I hope Gary Johnson runs as a libertarian again. I'd do some hardcore campaigning just to get his name out there. If he doesn't run, though, I'd love to see Rand Paul run. I would also love to see Rand Paul run, because I could go for another 300+ EC Dem win in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Nov 8, 2012 7:50:18 GMT -5
I certainly hope those right wing idiots are not the Republican party's base. The weird thing to me is that they constantly upset people who are in the middle, independent or undecided, by trying to appeal to these ultra conservative goofs, and yet they still just narrowly lost the election. If they had just picked a Republican candidate who really was a moderate, not some wishy washy clown like Romney, I think they would have had a great chance of winning. The support for Obama is pretty weak yet he still won - that's telling you the Republicans done messed up. They need to stop listening to the loudmouth fringe voters and appeal to the middle. I figure it's like a bell curve, it's a lot meatier in the middle of the road and yet they keep kissing the outliers' asses with this pro-life and Tea Party crap. If they had picked a guy like Ron Paul, though, he would have been destroyed. He does not appeal to mainstream America at all. Paul polled better than every Republican against Obama. Your thoughts? Ugh. Do we really need this argument for the umpteenth time? No. I didn't think so. Anyway, Jeb Bush is a horrible idea just because his last name is Bush. A Republican named Bush would not be able to win. The Dems would tar and feather him and claim he was the same as his brother. Wouldn't even have to be true, it's too easy of a target. Now, if Obama had a brother who wanted to run, that might be different.
|
|