2016 U.S Election Thread

Romney had to play into the whole "tough guy Republican" president for foreign policy, but I think that he's actually more liberal on the note. I recall (and will search for the link now) when he spoke in Mass. when I was in the Guard there, that there are times when America needs to fight, and times to let the region handle it.

I was impressed with the speech. However, I know what you're going to say to that "he's a politician, he said what you wanted to hear". You may be right, too. I think he'd be worth another shot though, if he ran more moderate. Thank you for your reply.

 

And thank you for your reply. I think that I documented why he is not a moderate or a liberal, at least on economic matters. He chose Ryan for VP! In any case, neither him or any other Republican will be allowed to run as a moderate. They will be puled to far to the right by the base and the wing nuts trying to get the nomination and as a result, will not be able to dig out of the deep hole that they will be forced to dig for themselves. On social issues, at best he doesn't care that much, which is almost as bad as being a true social conservative. As we used to say in the 60's "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem"

 

That's our problem. Both parties are to stubborn to allow a more moderate candidate. The Dems pretended to hate Romneey (who is a 1%er, elitist, with offshore bank accounts-dems really hated that offshore bank account thing), now they want to elect Hillary (who is a 1%er elitist with off shore bank accounts). We're just getting dumber as the days go by.

 

I'm aware of Clinton's short comings. We need a more radical candidate like Elizabeth Warren

 

Electing someone crazy won't solve the problems.

 

How is she crazy?

 

That oughta put Republicans back to square one just in time for another re-branding. The party wants more black votes, the base does not.

 

The party needs Black votes, and Hispanic votes, and women's votes, and younger Americans' votes.

They know that:

 

I think there's a limit to how much 'accepting' the Republican base is going to go along with. A percentage of those folks would rather lose elections.

 

I think you guys are trying to read way too much into this, I know the pundits, the talking heads do this all the time and it is very catching. What I do is look at party affiliation/identification. That pretty much tells me the strength of the two parties vs. the number of independents who can switch sides very easily and are at times a very fickle bunch. Your woman’s vote, the black vote, Hispanic, young, old vote all make up the two parties and the independents. Let’s look at a few key years:

Year…Dem…Rep…Ind…Ind.Lean.Dem….Ind.Lean.Rep…..True.Ind
2000…34……30…..36…………15…………………….17……………….4
2006…33……28……39………..20…………………...11..………………8
2010…32……33…..34………..12……………………15…………………7
2011…30……27…..42………..18……………………15…………………9
2012…35……30…..33………..16……………………12…………………5
2013…30……24….44………..14…………………..18………………..13
2014…26……25….47………..16…………………..22………………….9…..As of September 7, 2014
These numbers tell the story of what happened and perhaps what will happen in November of this year. Counting Republican affiliation along with independents lean Republicans that comes out to 47%, doing the same for the Democrats in 2000, that comes out to 49%. Bush won a squeaker.

In 2006 the Democrats won back congress, their total percentage counting independent leans was 53% vs. 39% for the Republicans. When the GOP won back the House in 2010 by picking up 63 seats their total was 48% vs. 44% for the Democrats. 2012, 51% Democratic, 42% Republican.

History has shown that roughly 90% of those who identify with one party or the other vote for that parties candidate. Independents leans, only 75% or there about vote the way they lean. True independents are all over the map and this is why the numbers do not match up perfectly. Gallup publishes these figures usually once a month, the October numbers are not out yet. But when one sees them, one can have a pretty good idea of which party will control the senate.

 

What do you guys think of Rand Paul? Highly unlikely that he will be elected for the nomination, let alone for the President, but to me he is interesting to watch and see how much resemblance he has with his father. So far, I have seen very little.

 

So, which party is willing to end our war on drugs, solve simple poverty, and get us into fusion in eight years or less?

 

They are all too invested in the status-quo to do any of that. If we want any of those things, we have to elect people of integrity and substance; which means no incumbents can keep their jobs.

 

The 2016 Election will be the Year of the Woman. Many, many People are fed up with the failures and cronyism of Rich, White, Men. Look at their Records: Wars, unimaginable Fraud both in, and outside of Government. In fact; some believe that the, 2016 Election is for Hillary to Lose. Seriously, Folks; does anyone really believe that She - - or any qualified Woman; could do worse than our String of White, Egotistical, and Crony Presidents? They have Deformed Capitalism and our Free Market System; as well as Bankrupting the Nation. Trust me; U don't want me to get started on the Nation's Financial Disaster! Tells from the Crypt - - U wish! The fires of Hell would reign supreme; in my response.

 

If only, we could find nice politicians of morals in modern times.

 

That's the mentality that other nations are making fun of us for. We are going to elect (maybe) Hillary Clinton, an elitist, 1%er, with off shore bank accouts, and who has been caught lying in office...all because of her gender.

You DON'T elect someone based off of gender or race, you do it for their resume.

 

Bumping this thread because of the upcoming election.