2016 U.S Election Thread

On MSNBC, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said that he is testing the presidential campaign waters to see if ordinary Americans will join him in a revolution that take America back from the big money interests like the Koch brothers.

"Here’s the point on Citizens United. I believe passionately that if we do not overturn Citizens United this country is well on the way to becoming an oligarchic form of society where the billionaire class is going to control our political life. But you know what? It’s not just my view. That’s not just your view. That is what people across the political spectrum believe. Nobody that I know regardless of their political views thinks that American democracy has anything to do with billionaires like the Koch brothers being able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to elect candidates who represent the rich and the powerful." http://www.politicususa.com/2014/08/27/bernie-sanders-join-political-revolution-america.html

 

OK, well I'm glad after several days you can finally admit that you never had a point,

 

Well the point remains that the private sector costs $1000 more per year per participant than the public sector to accomplish the same thing.

 

We were talking about the prescription drug program. And the reason we were talking about the prescription drug program is because it most resembles how Paul Ryan wants to structure Medicare. So, the "point" you are declaring is irrelevant to the issue.

 

Paul Ryan wants to turn Medicare into a voucher system.

 

America's demographics, both in regard to age and ethnicity, are veritable death knells for the obdurate Old Boys, but the tintinnabulation is deafening when one heeds the admonition, Cherchez la femme!

Triple whammy!

​

 

The GOP isn’t over Mitt Romney. A USA Today/Suffolk University poll released on Wednesday indicates that 35% of likely Iowa Republican caucus voters would vote for the former Massachusetts governor and 2012 presidential nominee in 2016. Fresh faces like Chris Christie (9%), Ted Cruz (5%) and Rand Paul (5%) didn’t come close. Mike Huckabee (another blast from the past) came in second at 9% and Romney’s 2012 runner-up, Rick Santorum, nabbed 9%. It seems that failed candidates from the GOP’s past are generating more enthusiasm than prospective candidates that are meant to be the party’s future and Mitt Romney, the man Republicans picked only as a last resort in an abysmal field of candidates, leads the pack.

Calls for a 2016 Romney candidacy are nothing new, but the aforementioned poll is bound to add fuel to the fire. Until recently, Romney categorically denied that he would run in 2016. Of late, however, Romney has been less definitive, remarking that “circumstances can change.” So what are these “circumstances?” Mainly the credibility of a competition increasingly marred by scandal and mediocrity. Texas Governor Rick Perry is under indictment on two felony charges, effectively slamming the brakes on an effort to repair his image following a disastrous 2012 campaign. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is under investigation for illegally coordinating with outside groups during his recall election. The dark cloud of Bridgegate hovers over New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and will likely remain even if he is never directly linked to the traffic scandal. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush has not indicated that he is running. Marco Rubio has failed to make an impression. Ted Cruz appeals only to the GOP base. Rand Paul is slightly more promising, but it is uncertain whether some of his eccentric libertarian positions will fly in a Republican primary. Against this underwhelming backdrop, Mitt Romney doesn’t seem like such an unpalatable option.
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/08/30/iowa-poll-shows-gop-desperate-give-mitt-romney-shot-2016.html

 

Maybe we should revisit, "equality" between work and pay.

 

So this conversation went full circle.

 

And until public opinion changed on it, the Democrats largely stood against it, too. I seem to recall the Democratic Presidential candidate as late as 2008 refusing to support gay marriage. And then, shortly after new polling found the public opinion had finally shifted on it he "re-evaluated" his position. Which, of course, isn't flip flopping. :/

 

Yes well politicians will be...well, politicians. The difference is that while the Democrats didn't support gay marriage, they did not rail against it, vilify gays and predict the end of civilization as we know it if gays were allowed to marry. The Republicans, stupidly, did all of those things being sucked in by the religious faction of the party. As a result, they are in a deep hole that they can't get out of because the base will rebell against ant candidate who even softens their stance on it. This despite a drastic shift in public opinion. Ironically, many religious leaders have come around to support gay rights but the Republicans are stuck in the mud. Bottom line: They are screwed

 

There was a nuance to the Democratic position, and strategic thinking that went with that nuanced position.
There was in the 90's a movement to amend the constitution with a sanctity of marriage amendment, defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
It was probably going to be successful, but DOMA, a law designed to be tossed out on constitutional grounds some day was put in place and the Amendment process disappeared, because there was no need. And all during that time, the Democrats were reaching out to the LGBT community, the Democrats had openly gay members in congress, the Democrats were supportive of gay rights, it isn't "flip-flopping", it's a long term commitment to human dignity, something absent from the Republican party.

 

Some indict progress - a futile past time, at best.

Personally, I welcome all, Republicans and Democrats alike, who embrace it, be they far-sighted or grudging.

 

Under the leadership of Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus, the GOP has launched yet another rebranding effort, and this time they've offered a helpful document to outline their principles. Unfortunately, they failed to provide a translation from Consultantese to English, but the good news is that Daily Kos is here to save the day. Here goes: http://www.dailykos.com/#
Enjoy!

 

Hey Republicans. What happened to that plan to rebrand the party as being more inclusive???

 

That was only the agenda of those hoity-toity election analysts, not the media entertainers that actually control the unwashed masses.

The existential crisis of the party whose registered voters are 90% White and whose politicians are even more so, in an America that is 62% White (Democratic Party 60% White) is not limited to their racial homogeneity.

If their inability to coalesce behind a viable presidential nominee persists, Default Willard will, very likely, be confronting Hillary Clinton, who will very likely improve upon Obama's having secured 55% of the female vote against the individual mandate man in '12, and Black and Hispanic Americans will overwhelmingly support the Democratic candidate. Aging Repubs will also confront the inexorable rise of better-educated, younger Americans as a percentage of the voting public.

Whoever the GOP comes up with, he'll be more suited to the presidency of the Confederate States of America than the United ones.

(Obama-haters were wee wee'd up when a CNN/ORC poll from July found that 53% of Americans say that they would support Romney over President Obama if they could vote again. What is far more relevant to 2016 is that the same survey found that, in a hypothetical match up with Clinton, 55% indicated they would have voted for Clinton had she been the nominee, 42% for Romney.)


The GOP's Cassandra was not some equivocal Delphic oracle spouting ambiguous prophesies when he bluntly stated the obvious:

 

maybe they are "two stepping"?

 

This is a truly exceptional post Natty!

I will now proceed to copy and paste what you wrote in full to one or more of the discussions that I have going regarding Mitt running in 2016!

 

Here is a nice cut and past for you. Let the clown show begin

 

.......

 

It would appear that if Republicans want to garner the support of African Americans, Christie is not the one to do it.

 

Another example of how the GOP has failed miserably at "rebranding" themselves:

 

Why is the left so against Romney? I mean, he actually has some liberal views...I think if he were to run more moderately (moderate on Abortion and SSM) then I think we'd have a winner. I know it would make the conservatives cry a bit, but why not? I think Romney is a very smart man, I just think he ran too conservatively. My opinion.

 

Romney is a plutocrat. Plain and simple. He does not represent me, or ordinary Americans in any way. What "liberal views" are you referring to? Health Care by passing it in Mass.? Don't count. He ran from it. He would work to repeal it.

 

.......