Hillary

[DukeNukeEm]

Duke is in the twilight zone. Republicans need an extreme facelift to deal with the America today. Their antics might've worked back in the day when it was "white friendly". However, times have changed and the Republicans are living in the past. The democrats have just evolved and took advantage of the situation. Republicans are going to need to love the blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities to even sniff being in power. Unless they can unite all the white people... then they may get somewhere... but that's just absurd.

 

So yeah, the republicans have a lot of work to do to change their image before 2016 or we can probably expect another 8 years of democrat rule.

Because Ted Cruz will really alienate hispanics.

 

I think there is a growing sentiment in this country that the way things were, even with all its faults, is a lot better than the ways things are now. People are starting to recognize the havoc the government has wreaked on our daily lives and they want to go back to better times.

 

The key is predicting this s*** isn't to just take a snapshot of the way a majority of people think in this moment right now, but were the general consensus is headed.

[Reddy]

Because Ted Cruz will really alienate hispanics.

 

I think there is a growing sentiment in this country that the way things were, even with all its faults, is a lot better than the ways things are now. People are starting to recognize the havoc the government has wreaked on our daily lives and they want to go back to better times.

 

The key is predicting this s*** isn't to just take a snapshot of the way a majority of people think in this moment right now, but were the general consensus is headed.

you think that just because his name is Cruz that he wont alienate hispanics?

 

you realize he was born in Canada right? lol

[pettie4sox]

Because Ted Cruz will really alienate hispanics.

 

I think there is a growing sentiment in this country that the way things were, even with all its faults, is a lot better than the ways things are now. People are starting to recognize the havoc the government has wreaked on our daily lives and they want to go back to better times.

 

The key is predicting this s*** isn't to just take a snapshot of the way a majority of people think in this moment right now, but were the general consensus is headed.

 

Duke, for God sakes man stop being so narrow minded. Hispanics are just one group that the GOP has alienated. What about blacks, Asians, LGBT, and other various minorities that make up the US? White people alone will not get it done. They have to cut their bigoted act and reach out to others and that's the bottom line. If they want to continue to trot their pander to white people act, they'll find themselves obsolete soon.

[DukeNukeEm]

you think that just because his name is Cruz that he wont alienate hispanics?

 

you realize he was born in Canada right? lol

His father fled Cuba.

Edited August 23, 2013 by DukeNukeEm

[DukeNukeEm]

Duke, for God sakes man stop being so narrow minded. Hispanics are just one group that the GOP has alienated. What about blacks, Asians, LGBT, and other various minorities that make up the US? White people alone will not get it done. They have to cut their bigoted act and reach out to others and that's the bottom line. If they want to continue to trot their pander to white people act, they'll find themselves obsolete soon.

Have the Republicans really alienated Asians? And they tried to appeal to blacks with Michael Steele but everyone just pointed and laughed at them (as they should have). Hispanics also aren't as staunchly anti-Republican as everyone makes them out to be just because the illegal immigration issue.

 

Besides, I dont think you can think of a bigger departure from the traditional Republican Party of the last 20 years than Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. That's a pretty massive shift.

[StrangeSox]

Rand "We should get rid of the Civil Rights Act" Paul isn't going to go over very well with minorities. Ted "Bats*** Crazy" Cruz isn't going to go over well with anyone other than staunch conservatives, the same as Bachmann or Cain or any of that group.

 

Why do you think there is growing sentiment for "the way things were," and what time period are you referring to there? Why do you think that, even if there's overall discontent with the way things are, a majority of voters are going to embrace the radical positions that Paul and Cruz have advocated?

 

eta: Asians voted for Obama 73% in 2012, an increase from 2008. Even if Republicans aren't actively targeting Asians, they can see the way they treat other groups.

 

eta2: I'm not saying that Republicans are completely doomed in 2016 no matter who the candidate is. I think HH could be right about Christie, though I do think their chances at the WH are much less than Congress.

Edited August 23, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

His father fled Cuba.

 

Cuban ex-pats aren't really a good representation of the overall hispanic demographic.

[pettie4sox]

Have the Republicans really alienated Asians? And they tried to appeal to blacks with Michael Steele but everyone just pointed and laughed at them (as they should have). Hispanics also aren't as staunchly anti-Republican as everyone makes them out to be just because the illegal immigration issue.

 

Besides, I dont think you can think of a bigger departure from the traditional Republican Party of the last 20 years than Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. That's a pretty massive shift.

 

The last two elections, the Republicans trotted out complete jokers. Yes, the republicans alienated just about every non white you can think of. Look at an RNC event, it's a sea of white people. Hispanics and blacks for the matter could easily identify themselves as conservative, since they are mostly a religious bunch. Republicans have to get these hateful bigoted assholes out of their party and welcome whomever with open hands.

 

I will tell you about an incident that occurred in my life. If you don't know, I'm black. My Dad is an Republican. He ran for office down in my hometown in central Illinois. One day, I went to a republican breakfast social with my dad. When we walked in, everyone pretty much stared us down like we didn't belong there or something. Needless to say, it was super awkward. They were cordial but you could get the sense that they were thinking that this was the white people's club and that some negro trash had just crashed the party.

 

Granted, that was just one example but this type of behavior is probably more common than you would like to believe. Democrats just pander to everyone and that's why they keep winning.

[DukeNukeEm]

Rand "We should get rid of the Civil Rights Act" Paul isn't going to go over very well with minorities. Ted "Bats*** Crazy" Cruz isn't going to go over well with anyone other than staunch conservatives, the same as Bachmann or Cain or any of that group.

 

Why do you think there is growing sentiment for "the way things were," and what time period are you referring to there? Why do you think that, even if there's overall discontent with the way things are, a majority of voters are going to embrace the radical positions that Paul and Cruz have advocated?

 

eta: Asians voted for Obama 73% in 2012, an increase from 2008. Even if Republicans aren't actively targeting Asians, they can see the way they treat other groups.

His problem with the Civil Rights Act was about government dictating the use of private property, which is a slippery slope. And I know the traditional way of discrediting anyone who isn't head-over-heels for the Federal Government is just to call them "bats*** crazy", but you're going to have to do more than that. You really think after all the damage Obama has done to the USA, the way people feel tricked and misled by him, that they're really going to keep falling for the same s*** from Democrats?

 

And of course there's a lot of people who want to old times back again. All those people losing their homes, out of work, scared of terrorists killing them and scared of their government (WHO YOU HAVE TO BE BATs*** CRAZY NOT TO LOVE RIGHT?) spying on them; they see it as an innovation of modern times and whether that judgment is true or not the one constant over time in this country has been the rampant growth of government.

[DukeNukeEm]

The last two elections, the Republicans trotted out complete jokers. Yes, the republicans alienated just about every non white you can think of. Look at an RNC event, it's a sea of white people. Hispanics and blacks for the matter could easily identify themselves as conservative, since they are mostly a religious bunch. Republicans have to get these hateful bigoted assholes out of their party and welcome whomever with open hands.

 

I will tell you about an incident that occurred in my life. If you don't know, I'm black. My Dad is an Republican. He ran for office down in my hometown in central Illinois. One day, I went to a republican breakfast social with my dad. When we walked in, everyone pretty much stared us down like we didn't belong there or something. Needless to say, it was super awkward. They were cordial but you could get the sense that they were thinking that this was the white people's club and that some negro trash had just crashed the party.

 

Granted, that was just one example but this type of behavior is probably more common than you would like to believe. Democrats just pander to everyone and that's why they keep winning.

And I honestly dont see how Ted Cruz or Rand Paul are hateful, bigoted assholes. I dont get it.

 

I can see McCain being an old asshole. I can see Romney being an out-of-touch imbecile. I can even see George Bush, who were now realizing wasn't all that bad, getting some hate because the Katrina fiasco. But these guys are clearly different than that old Republican Party both in demeanor and in policy.

[NorthSideSox72]

Leaving personalities and names aside, because it is way too early to see who will run and how they will do in the primaries... here are some interesting mechanical dynamics that will be a big part of things in 2016 that we CAN look at now...

 

1. The SCOTUS decision on the Voting Rights Act, and its effect on voter ID laws... depending on how much suppression the GOP in certain states gets away with, that could take a very real chunk out of the Democrat's chances. In their corner is the fact that most of the places this is going on are not going to go for a Dem Prez candidate anyway, most likely. But it WILL have an effect on House and Senate races, and people keep forgetting that whatever you think of Obama's Presidency, it is clearly Congress (both parties) that has more thoroughly f***ed us over than the President has. So how the following investigations and court cases on voter ID laws go will have some importance.

 

2. Part of the reason Obama won more thoroughly than many projected in 2013 is their very, very solid and even innovative technology usage was in their ground game strategy. Those tools were huge. Now, any Dem candidate will probably have similar resources at their disposal, which favors them. But, you can bet your ass the GOP will be looking to do something similar, and the gap will close to some extent. So keep an eye on GOP efforts in this arena (statistical analysis, etc.) to see how they may fare.

 

3. Where will the economy stand in 2016? No other issue will matter more. Ironically, if the economy is going well, it will matter a little less, but will still be key. So watch the UE numbers, markets, housing market, etc.

 

4. Obamacare will finally be in full, deep effect by that time - and like it or not, the Dems need to live with that mixed (at best) bag around their necks. So it will be key to see how the health care world for the average Joe/Mary looks at that time.

 

5. The Republicans continue to wrestle with an internal schism - the establishment GOP is being pulled apart from not just one, but two directions: The Tea Partiers (aka "I'm more conservative! No, I'm more conservative!" which is what it has become), and then the Libertarian types. Both groups have only been getting frothier as time goes on, which will make it very difficult for the party to come up with any sort of cohesive set of policy thoughts. This could make things very messy for them going into 2016.

 

6. Finally, the 2014 midterms - cannot ignore this, it is a referendum on not only ObamaCo, but the current and historically useless Congress. This will set a tone.

 

So, lots to discuss... the individual people running isn't even among my top 6 things worth watching right now.

[pettie4sox]

And I honestly dont see how Ted Cruz or Rand Paul are hateful, bigoted assholes. I dont get it.

 

I can see McCain being an old asshole. I can see Romney being an out-of-touch imbecile. I can even see George Bush, who were now realizing wasn't all that bad, getting some hate because the Katrina fiasco. But these guys are clearly different than that old Republican Party both in demeanor and in policy.

 

Duke you are missing the point. Their party is littered with clowns like that. I'm not saying Cruz and Rand fit the bill but when you have people in your party saying stupid s*** like that, it brings the whole base down, especially among independent voters. Remember how that one senator from MO said some stupid s*** about rape. Every republican tried to isolate themselves from that clown.

 

It's kind of like some white people believe that all blacks are criminals because of the actions of a few. Same s***.

[StrangeSox]

His problem with the Civil Rights Act was about government dictating the use of private property, which is a slippery slope.

 

It's not a slippery slope for a majority of people including an overwhelming majority of non-whites. We're not talking about what is ideologically correct here but what it means for an election. Ron and Rand Paul will make whatever problems the GOP currently has with non-whites that much worse.

 

And I know the traditional way of discrediting anyone who isn't head-over-heels for the Federal Government is just to call them "bats*** crazy", but you're going to have to do more than that.

 

No, Cruz is just an ideological nutjob (or he's very good at playing the part). In his short time in the Senate, he's accomplished nothing, proposed a bunch of crazy and pissed off basically everyone, but not in a good "power to the people!" populist way.

 

You really think after all the damage Obama has done to the USA, the way people feel tricked and misled by him, that they're really going to keep falling for the same s*** from Democrats?

 

Obama's approval rating is hovering around "meh." There's not some national outrage about him or his policies, and a non-negligible portion of the disapproval rating comes from leftists and liberals who are disappointed with his policies and administration. In fact, he just won a national election less than a year ago with a pretty comfortable margin.

 

And of course there's a lot of people who want to old times back again.

 

What old times and what people? The 90's? The 80's?

 

All those people losing their homes, out of work, scared of terrorists killing them and scared of their government (WHO YOU HAVE TO BE BATs*** CRAZY NOT TO LOVE RIGHT?) spying on them; they see it as an innovation of modern times and whether that judgment is true or not the one constant over time in this country has been the rampant growth of government.

 

I don't see much evidence that a majority of people view "rampant growth of government" as the cause for all of society's problems. In fact, we just had an election last year with a pretty mixed sitting President overseeing a very weak, years-long recovery running against two guys who wanted to slash countless government programs. They lost pretty thoroughly. Where is the evidence that people think our s***ty economy would be improved by Republicans? That Republicans would reduce the police state?

 

I'm not arguing whether Paul's ideology would lead to neofeudalism if implemented or if Hillary or [insert generic Dem here] would have better policies right now. I'm trying to see what you're basing your idea that Paul and Cruz would be widely popular on, because right now it just looks like wishful thinking. I could say that a ticket of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders would win a huge populist victory because people are sick of big banks and corporate greed etc. etc. etc. but I know there's just not that sort of support out there.

Edited August 23, 2013 by StrangeSox

[EvilMonkey]

this post is just so ignorant in so many ways.

 

strong woman = b****? really?

Yeah, I really look forward to the Hillary presidency so i can be called a sexist instead of a racist for a change every time i disagree with her.

[StrangeSox]

2. Part of the reason Obama won more thoroughly than many projected in 2013 is their very, very solid and even innovative technology usage was in their ground game strategy. Those tools were huge. Now, any Dem candidate will probably have similar resources at their disposal, which favors them. But, you can bet your ass the GOP will be looking to do something similar, and the gap will close to some extent. So keep an eye on GOP efforts in this arena (statistical analysis, etc.) to see how they may fare.

 

I take issue with this. Several political scientists predicted very, very accurately using publicly available polls pretty darn close to exactly where Obama would win. It was the professional pundit class that kept insisting "it's a toss-up!" and completely dismissing what these people were saying because they get paid to talk about this and pretend they have special insight mixed with some of the crazier "Unskewed Polls" reality denial stuff. And, really, given how much some of the top pundits/political consultants were buying into the "Romney is going to win big!" stuff right up through election night, I don't know how much rigorous statistical analysis and introspection to expect.

 

Now, absolutely, Obama had a much better technological game and there was a pretty informative post-mortem on how poorly Romney's organization did with that, and I think inevitably the GOP will get better on that regard, but I don't think it'll make much of a difference overall.

[StrangeSox]

Duke you are missing the point. Their party is littered with clowns like that. I'm not saying Cruz and Rand fit the bill but when you have people in your party saying stupid s*** like that, it brings the whole base down, especially among independent voters. Remember how that one senator from MO said some stupid s*** about rape. Every republican tried to isolate themselves from that clown.

 

(it wasn't just one senator, which is why this is such a problem for the GOP)

[StrangeSox]

also I can't believe I'm talking about the 2016 elections, gonna go ahead and jump out of this thread for the next three years.

[pettie4sox]

Yeah, I really look forward to the Hillary presidency so i can be called a sexist instead of a racist for a change every time i disagree with her.

 

You gotta ignore the trolls man. Rational people know that differing opinions exist.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah, I really look forward to the Hillary presidency so i can be called a sexist instead of a racist for a change every time i disagree with her.

 

Lol, bingo.

 

Also LOL at liberals who think this is the end of the Republican party. Opinions change ("homosexuality is immoral...oh wait, i'm ok with it because I can get votes and I need California money!"). Guys with D's next to their name were against civil rights legislation the most (and some of them just happened to remain democrats until they died)

 

Hi!

 

[greg775]

this post is just so ignorant in so many ways.

 

strong woman = b****? really?

 

She is the female version of Dole on TV. Just mean and b****y if that's the right word. I predict she'll be the hot early leader, she'll get the magazine covers and the long stories, "It's Hillary Time" but she doesn't stand a chance.

UNLESS she just doesn't campaign. The less she opens her mouth, the more she could just win on her name. As a CONCEPT, Hillary, Clinton II, is a great idea. The reality is she flat out doesn't pass the popularity TV test.

 

And cmon now. Don't tell me you don't believe in superficiality regarding candidates. Obama is handsome, knows exactly how to play the camera. They've always said guys like Humphrey, Dole, etc., who looked horrible on TV didn't stand a chance. I don't think Hillary is capable of doing all those campaign speeches again and appearances without exploding. She is a strong woman. I love that. But she also comes across as a big b****. She'll never ever win.

[illinilaw08]

Yeah, I really look forward to the Hillary presidency so i can be called a sexist instead of a racist for a change every time i disagree with her.

 

Not that I should need to say this, but disagreeing with someone's policies and calling them a b**** are two very different things. The former is rational. The latter is probably pretty sexist.

[LittleHurt05]

She is the female version of Dole on TV. Just mean and b****y if that's the right word. I predict she'll be the hot early leader, she'll get the magazine covers and the long stories, "It's Hillary Time" but she doesn't stand a chance.

UNLESS she just doesn't campaign. The less she opens her mouth, the more she could just win on her name. As a CONCEPT, Hillary, Clinton II, is a great idea. The reality is she flat out doesn't pass the popularity TV test.

 

And cmon now. Don't tell me you don't believe in superficiality regarding candidates. Obama is handsome, knows exactly how to play the camera. They've always said guys like Humphrey, Dole, etc., who looked horrible on TV didn't stand a chance. I don't think Hillary is capable of doing all those campaign speeches again and appearances without exploding. She is a strong woman. I love that. But she also comes across as a big b****. She'll never ever win.

 

Was George Bush a great TV figure? I doubt it. Still won two elections.

[greg775]

Was George Bush a great TV figure? I doubt it. Still won two elections.

 

Bush looked OK, kind of the consummate businessman. Not grotesque-ish. The professional look can work. Ask women. They don't think W. was gross or anything; I've heard some think he was handsome.

Gore was a pretty boy on TV . He almost won. Kerry looked like Bush, gray hair, businesslike. As far as my theory on the eye-test, Gore probably should have won, I'll give you that. In his mind, he did win, though. Recount asked for.

Edited August 23, 2013 by greg775

[pettie4sox]

Lol, bingo.

 

Also LOL at liberals who think this is the end of the Republican party. Opinions change ("homosexuality is immoral...oh wait, i'm ok with it because I can get votes and I need California money!"). Guys with D's next to their name were against civil rights legislation the most (and some of them just happened to remain democrats until they died)

 

Hi!

 

 

Democrats do what's necessary to win. Republicans try to pander to their base and lose. It will be the end of the Republicans if they don't adapt and survive. That's all anyone has been saying.

[pettie4sox]

Bush looked OK, kind of the consummate businessman. Not grotesque-ish. The professional look can work. Ask women. They don't think W. was gross or anything; I've heard some think he was handsome.

Gore was a pretty boy on TV . He almost won. Kerry looked like Bush, gray hair, businesslike. As far as my theory on the eye-test, Gore probably should have won, I'll give you that. In his mind, he did win, though. Recount asked for.

 

"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... shame on... shame on... shame on... the point is, we can't get fooled again."

 

-G.W. Bush