US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

[Jimmy Higgins]

The problem is huge. With gerrymandering pretty much solidifying districts in concrete, the House isn't going to change. The only thing that may happen is the Senate tightening up, with roughly 637 Republican seats in the Senate to the Democrats -3 up for grabs.

So if a Democrat wins in '16, we are just going to see the same that we have seen between '09 and '16, an inhospitable Republican insurgency.

 

[arkirk]

U.S. President -2016 - the great POLITICAL WHORE'S RACE! Well, it sounds the same almost...and there are serious issues to deal with and here we have the same corporatist assholes pushing the same agendas...war, world domination, oil usage, corporate profits before any other interest. It does not matter one whit whether Clinton or Bush wins... It will be an asshole taking the reigns of government for his/her contributors and more importantly, for himself/herself.

Denialism is rampant in both parties and the range of denials are similar. To be honest, there are good people in both these parties and they occasionally try to do good things. Never mind, things will be okay, just as soon as the world becomes flat again. Things we need to forget about: human rights, global warming, poverty, environmental protection, endangered species (including homo sapiens), etc. These issues have muddied up the political landscape for far to long and have impeded the masters of the universe in their establishment of a NEW WORLD DISORDER.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

U.S. President -2016 - the great POLITICAL WHORE'S RACE! Well, it sounds the same almost...and there are serious issues to deal with and here we have the same corporatist assholes pushing the same agendas...war, world domination, oil usage, corporate profits before any other interest. It does not matter one whit whether Clinton or Bush wins... It will be an asshole taking the reigns of government for his/her contributors and more importantly, for himself/herself.

Denialism is rampant in both parties and the range of denials are similar. To be honest, there are good people in both these parties and they occasionally try to do good things. Never mind, things will be okay, just as soon as the world becomes flat again. Things we need to forget about: human rights, global warming, poverty, environmental protection, endangered species (including homo sapiens), etc. These issues have muddied up the political landscape for far to long and have impeded the masters of the universe in their establishment of a NEW WORLD DISORDER.

Too many Republican Presidents and money becomes speech and non-anthropromorphic entities can have religious convictions. We are one justice away from Federally blessing gay marriage bans.

 

[SimpleDon]

U.S. President -2016 - the great POLITICAL WHORE'S RACE! Well, it sounds the same almost...and there are serious issues to deal with and here we have the same corporatist assholes pushing the same agendas...war, world domination, oil usage, corporate profits before any other interest. It does not matter one whit whether Clinton or Bush wins... It will be an asshole taking the reigns of government for his/her contributors and more importantly, for himself/herself.

Denialism is rampant in both parties and the range of denials are similar. To be honest, there are good people in both these parties and they occasionally try to do good things. Never mind, things will be okay, just as soon as the world becomes flat again. Things we need to forget about: human rights, global warming, poverty, environmental protection, endangered species (including homo sapiens), etc. These issues have muddied up the political landscape for far to long and have impeded the masters of the universe in their establishment of a NEW WORLD DISORDER.

I think that it matters a great deal whether we elect a corporatist Democrat or a corporatist Republican. A Democrat is not going to attack Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and will want to extend ObamaCare rather than destroy it. A Democrat is not going to scour the far reaches of American jurisprudence for the most reactionary judge possible to appoint to the Supreme Court. A Democrat isn't going to try to increase income inequality by passing tax cuts for the wealthy and turning the screws harder on the poor and the middle class. A Democrat isn't going to be campaigning to return to the days of legalized bigotry against minorities, the gays and women. A Democrat isn't going to want to save marriage by outlawing some marriages. A Democrat isn't going to ignore diplomacy to start a war to prove his manhood. A Democrat isn't going to pretend climate change isn't happening because they don't have an answer for it that doesn't hurt the coal and oil industry.

 

[SimpleDon]

and etc.

 

[arkirk]

U.S. President -2016 - the great POLITICAL WHORE'S RACE! Well, it sounds the same almost...and there are serious issues to deal with and here we have the same corporatist assholes pushing the same agendas...war, world domination, oil usage, corporate profits before any other interest. It does not matter one whit whether Clinton or Bush wins... It will be an asshole taking the reigns of government for his/her contributors and more importantly, for himself/herself.

Denialism is rampant in both parties and the range of denials are similar. To be honest, there are good people in both these parties and they occasionally try to do good things. Never mind, things will be okay, just as soon as the world becomes flat again. Things we need to forget about: human rights, global warming, poverty, environmental protection, endangered species (including homo sapiens), etc. These issues have muddied up the political landscape for far to long and have impeded the masters of the universe in their establishment of a NEW WORLD DISORDER.

I think that it matters a great deal whether we elect a corporatist Democrat or a corporatist Republican. A Democrat is not going to attack Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and will want to extend ObamaCare rather than destroy it. A Democrat is not going to scour the far reaches of American jurisprudence for the most reactionary judge possible to appoint to the Supreme Court. A Democrat isn't going to try to increase income inequality by passing tax cuts for the wealthy and turning the screws harder on the poor and the middle class. A Democrat isn't going to be campaigning to return to the days of legalized bigotry against minorities, the gays and women. A Democrat isn't going to want to save marriage by outlawing some marriages. A Democrat isn't going to ignore diplomacy to start a war to prove his manhood. A Democrat isn't going to pretend climate change isn't happening because they don't have an answer for it that doesn't hurt the coal and oil industry.

Maybe you should discus this with Senator Schumer.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that it matters a great deal whether we elect a corporatist Democrat or a corporatist Republican. A Democrat is not going to attack Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and will want to extend ObamaCare rather than destroy it. A Democrat is not going to scour the far reaches of American jurisprudence for the most reactionary judge possible to appoint to the Supreme Court. A Democrat isn't going to try to increase income inequality by passing tax cuts for the wealthy and turning the screws harder on the poor and the middle class. A Democrat isn't going to be campaigning to return to the days of legalized bigotry against minorities, the gays and women. A Democrat isn't going to want to save marriage by outlawing some marriages. A Democrat isn't going to ignore diplomacy to start a war to prove his manhood. A Democrat isn't going to pretend climate change isn't happening because they don't have an answer for it that doesn't hurt the coal and oil industry.

Ya, no matter what legitimate problems one has with the Democrats, I don't believe there's a a single issue on which the Republicans aren't worse. Given that the nature of your 17th Century electoral system ensures that one or the other is becoming President, the lesser of two evils is the best you can hope for.

 

[ZiprHead]

For those of you, on the left, that don't want Hillary Clinton, who is your realistic alternative? Who would you take, that's willing to run, and has a realistic shot at winning?

Hoping people will address this.

There is a lot I would like to see different from Clinton, but I am happy to vote for her over any Republican.
Still, it bears discussing, who else would be good, and why?

I'm with you on that one. Frankly, most of the time, I'm not voting FOR a candidate, but against one.

 

[SimpleDon]

I think that it matters a great deal whether we elect a corporatist Democrat or a corporatist Republican. A Democrat is not going to attack Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and will want to extend ObamaCare rather than destroy it. A Democrat is not going to scour the far reaches of American jurisprudence for the most reactionary judge possible to appoint to the Supreme Court. A Democrat isn't going to try to increase income inequality by passing tax cuts for the wealthy and turning the screws harder on the poor and the middle class. A Democrat isn't going to be campaigning to return to the days of legalized bigotry against minorities, the gays and women. A Democrat isn't going to want to save marriage by outlawing some marriages. A Democrat isn't going to ignore diplomacy to start a war to prove his manhood. A Democrat isn't going to pretend climate change isn't happening because they don't have an answer for it that doesn't hurt the coal and oil industry.

Ya, no matter what legitimate problems one has with the Democrats, I don't believe there's a a single issue on which the Republicans aren't worse. Given that the nature of your 17th Century electoral system ensures that one or the other is becoming President, the lesser of two evils is the best you can hope for.

Let's see if anyone here believes otherwise. I didn't even touch on education, immigration, voting rights, corporate welfare, deregulation spawning financial instability,. Give me more time and I am sure that I can think of even more.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Republican "deregulation" ... "you do what you want, but if you fail we'll give you bailouts."

I don't see how anyone can call that "deregulation."

 

[SimpleDon]

Republican "deregulation" ... "you do what you want, but if you fail we'll give you bailouts."

I don't see how anyone can call that "deregulation."

That is probably why you can call yourself a libertarian without realizing what that that means. It would make you sick otherwise.
[
The idea that the economy can operate without regulating businesses is ridiculous. The very same thing that makes capitalism the best economic system that we have come up with, that it rewards innovation and risk taking, are the very same reasons that capitalism has to be regulated and controlled by government, that capitalism rewards innovation and risk taking in criminal enterprises even more.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Republican "deregulation" ... "you do what you want, but if you fail we'll give you bailouts."

I don't see how anyone can call that "deregulation."

It is the best type of deregulation there can be, do what you want and we'll save your jobs when you fail.

 

[Blahface]

U.S. President -2016 - the great POLITICAL WHORE'S RACE! Well, it sounds the same almost...and there are serious issues to deal with and here we have the same corporatist assholes pushing the same agendas...war, world domination, oil usage, corporate profits before any other interest. It does not matter one whit whether Clinton or Bush wins... It will be an asshole taking the reigns of government for his/her contributors and more importantly, for himself/herself.

Denialism is rampant in both parties and the range of denials are similar. To be honest, there are good people in both these parties and they occasionally try to do good things. Never mind, things will be okay, just as soon as the world becomes flat again. Things we need to forget about: human rights, global warming, poverty, environmental protection, endangered species (including homo sapiens), etc. These issues have muddied up the political landscape for far to long and have impeded the masters of the universe in their establishment of a NEW WORLD DISORDER.

I think that it matters a great deal whether we elect a corporatist Democrat or a corporatist Republican. A Democrat is not going to attack Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and will want to extend ObamaCare rather than destroy it. A Democrat is not going to scour the far reaches of American jurisprudence for the most reactionary judge possible to appoint to the Supreme Court. A Democrat isn't going to try to increase income inequality by passing tax cuts for the wealthy and turning the screws harder on the poor and the middle class. A Democrat isn't going to be campaigning to return to the days of legalized bigotry against minorities, the gays and women. A Democrat isn't going to want to save marriage by outlawing some marriages. A Democrat isn't going to ignore diplomacy to start a war to prove his manhood. A Democrat isn't going to pretend climate change isn't happening because they don't have an answer for it that doesn't hurt the coal and oil industry.

Obama would have cut social security if the Republicans weren't so greedy and wanted more.

 

[RavenSky]

So NRA's Wayne LaPierre says "Eight Years Of One Demographically Symbolic President Is Enough"

I take it this means he is against Cruz or Rubio winning the Presidency?

 

[Ford]

So NRA's Wayne LaPierre says "Eight Years Of One Demographically Symbolic President Is Enough"

I take it this means he is against Cruz or Rubio winning the Presidency?

No, it just means he's an asshole.

 

[angelo]

It's the economy stupid! Whoever can convince enough Americans that they have all the answers will win, no matter that they won't deliver after they're elected!

 

[angelo]

When was the last time a party held on to the White House three terms in a row?

Reagan and G.H.W. Bush, 1981-93 - three terms.

The last time the Democrats held the Oval Office for more than two terms was Roosevelt and Truman from 1933-1953

So, using history as a basis, the Democrats have Buckley of holding the White House for a third term providing the Republicans don't shoot themselves in the foot by running a truly bad candidate.

 

[bilby]

Reagan and G.H.W. Bush, 1981-93 - three terms.

The last time the Democrats held the Oval Office for more than two terms was Roosevelt and Truman from 1933-1953

So, using history as a basis, the Democrats have Buckley of holding the White House for a third term providing the Republicans don't shoot themselves in the foot by running a truly bad candidate.

I don't think the stats support that conclusion.

But given the field of contenders on the GOP side, we will never know.

 

[angelo]

More likely 60/40 in favour of the GOP to take the White House, again, providing they pick a decent candidate.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So NRA's Wayne LaPierre says "Eight Years Of One Demographically Symbolic President Is Enough"

I take it this means he is against Cruz or Rubio winning the Presidency?

No just a broken racist dog whistle everyone can hear.

- - - Updated - - -

More likely 60/40 in favour of the GOP to take the White House, again, providing they pick a decent candidate.

So more like 20/80.