2016 Election Thread

[TheLeviathan]

Might as well start early - lord knows the Republican field certainly has.

 

What does everyone think the big issues are going to be that decide this race as we sit about a year and change away from the election?

 

(Thread started in honor of BYTO thread)

[Mike Sixel]

Clearly it is Caitlyn Jenner and how she is going to cause the downfall of society. that, or bicyclists.

 

It boggles my mind that people can't sit back and look at outcomes produced, and see which party actually produces more jobs, more income, more freedom (other than guns), and succeeds more on pretty much any measure they want to lay out there.

[Brock Beauchamp]

We're not even at the halfway mark of 2015.

 

*shakes fist at sky*

[TheLeviathan]

Could you provide some such data on outcomes?

 

Frankly, I think they both suck at everything you listed for different reasons.

[TheLeviathan]

 

We're not even at the halfway mark of 2015.

 

*shakes fist at sky*

 

I think there are more candidates in the race than days left until the election.  Just sayin.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I know. It's ridiculous.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Could you provide some such data on outcomes?

 

Frankly, I think they both suck at everything you listed for different reasons.

 

Well, let's look at budget deficits under the Bush's vs Clinton and Obama? Or maybe compare MN to WI the last 5 years?

 

I should have just left that part out, and left in how Jenner and bicyclists will eventually lead to our downfall......

[TheLeviathan]

 

Well, let's look at budget deficits under the Bush's vs Clinton and Obama? Or maybe compare MN to WI the last 5 years?

 

I should have just left that part out, and left in how Jenner and bicyclists will eventually lead to our downfall......

 

Most democrats think Clinton was largely a Republican in sheep's clothing.  And I agree the hardline neo-cons like Walker are absolutely atrocious politicians.  The more moderate Republicans I'm more comfortable with, but they are being drummed out of the party.

[Mike Sixel]

Like me.....I was a very active moderate Republican, even asked to run for the state house by the then Republican speaker and future governor....... You can call Clinton what you want, but he was a Democrat.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Like me.....I was a very active moderate Republican, even asked to run for the state house by the then Republican speaker and future governor....... You can call Clinton what you want, but he was a Democrat.

 

I like many of the things Clinton did, but the climate in which he was President also had a lot of things outside of his control making things better.

 

Some of his policies have lead to many of our biggest issues today.  (Incarceration rates and the push to make it possible for everyone to buy a home in particular)

[TheLeviathan]

I tend to see Republicans as being very efficient at causing immediate, awful damage while Democrats are really good about giving you a shiny package that explodes in your face 5-15 years later.

 

Not sure which is better.

[Mike Sixel]

Well, one wants to limit freedom (other than guns)......that's the litmus test for me, because I mostly agree with your assertion about the economy.

[drjim]

I generally think if the next President can avoid putting significant boots on the ground in the Middle East and not cause another financial bubble to inflate and burst, it should be considered a success.

 

Marijuana legalization, government surveillance, prison sentencing reform, Obamacare reforms, rethinking policing strike me as the big domestic issues coming up. I also think income inequality will be a big talker and potential cause of unrest if not handled well.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Well, one wants to limit freedom (other than guns)......that's the litmus test for me, because I mostly agree with your assertion about the economy.

 

I tend to think both sides are limiting freedoms in different ways.  But the Republicans bother me with their emphasis on particular social issues.

 

At the same time, those issues they have emphasized may lead to a hard death for the party and the leading candidates.  The Republicans continue to emphasize the wrong side of the wrong issues and those consequences are coming soon.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Well, one wants to limit freedom (other than guns)......that's the litmus test for me, because I mostly agree with your assertion about the economy.

 

When it comes to freedom, both parties have done a good job destroying the constitution.  It isn't like the Dems overturned the Patriot Act.  They've continued to uphold it at every step.

[Mike Sixel]

 

When it comes to freedom, both parties have done a good job destroying the constitution.  It isn't like the Dems overturned the Patriot Act.  They've continued to uphold it at every step.

 

Agreed, that is an issue for me.    But if both parties are doing that, then I look at the next list of freedoms. I don't pick between them based on what they both do that is the same.

[ericchri]

Lincoln Chafee just skyrocketed in my estimation, and I know diddly-squat about him, except that he's in favor of the metric system (we should have made that switch 30-40 years ago).  I might not actually like him as a candidate for all I know, but at least he brought one logical idea to his campaign kickoff.  Of course that idea will be ridiculed as being "too expensive due to having to change all the signs and un-American."

[Mike Sixel]

Our hubris is astounding

[Mike Sixel]

Chafee reads like an old skewl moderate Republican.

[drjim]

 

Our hubris is astounding

 

I find it quaint and charming. Except when it leads to bad wars.

[Craig Arko]

All I got.

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/06/04/penn-jillettes-take-on-the-candidates-ads-is-hilarious-and-pretty-spot-on-videos/

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Agreed, that is an issue for me.    But if both parties are doing that, then I look at the next list of freedoms. I don't pick between them based on what they both do that is the same.

 

Honestly, I think this country needs to dump the reps and the dems more than anything.  Neither party is operating in the best interests of their own voters, much less the American people.  The problem is people are so pre-occupied with voting the lesser of two evils that they forget that they get nothing but 2 evils.  It's time to kick them both to the curb.

[twinsnorth49]

Lincoln Chafee just skyrocketed in my estimation, and I know diddly-squat about him, except that he's in favor of the metric system (we should have made that switch 30-40 years ago). I might not actually like him as a candidate for all I know, but at least he brought one logical idea to his campaign kickoff. Of course that idea will be ridiculed as being "too expensive due to having to change all the signs and un-American."

Metric eh? Careful, this is how the socialists get their foot in the door.

[mikecgrimes]

My best guess of where the race is now.  First of all I would say Republicans have somewhere around a 60% chance of winning significantly closer to 50% if Democrats go with someone other then Clinton.

 

On the Democrat side among current candidates I'd say Hillary is around a 98%, but I also think there is a 50% or better chance a more credible challenger jumps in at some point.  With all that said I would put her at around a 65% favorite With Biden and Warren at 10% each and everyone else taking up the remaining 15%.  I love Amy Klobuchar as a long shot bet.  

 

On the Republican side the 4 clear favorites at this point are Scott Walker Marco Rubio Rand Paul and Jeb Bush.  I have Bush 4th but he could be #1 if the others run into more trouble then he has to this point, still he will never approach 50% at least until the majority of candidates drop out.  A case can be made for any of the 4 having the best shot.  Among the rest the only candidates who wouldn't shock me if they won are Cruz and Christie.  I'm sure in the next few months one or two candidates will make the wouldn't shock me list and one or two of the top 4 could fall apart and allow more opportunity for everyone else but I would put that group of 4 at 90% fairly equally split.  

 

All kinds of people are saying a third party could emerge if it's Hillary versus Bush and I wouldn't be shocked if someone jumped in and got 8 or 10% but there is no path to victory, and a lot of alternative options available.  Participate in the process it's wide open if outsiders jump in and influence the results.  It might be tough to defeat Hillary by turning out a different crowd but defeating Bush should be easy if people turnout.  

 

Full disclosure I would consider myself Tea Party and a supporter of Rand Paul first and Scott Walker 2nd.  I love Ted Cruz as a Senator but don't see him as my president.

[TheLeviathan]

Out of curiosity, what is it you like about Walker?

[diehardtwinsfan]

yeah, not really seeing the Walker love.  He's popular with a few loud right wingers, and that's about it.

 

The last thing this country needs is another Bush in the Whitehouse.  I don't care if Jeb was a better candidate than the Georges...  They were bad enough that his name on the ballot alone will have a lot of people staying home or voting democrat. 

 

Now that I think about it, Bush V. Clinton might actually help me get my 3rd party wish...

[mikecgrimes]

 

Out of curiosity, what is it you like about Walker?

 

Unlike a lot of Republicans he has been able to do what he said he wanted to do.  He's also proven you can win elections after acting as a true fiscal republican.  I get why the other side hates him, I just don't get why the other side thinks I should care so much about that that I sacrifice my principal.  The alternative for me is to figure out which candidate a few "independents" will vote for, and get all the flaws of the Republican party (George W Bush) and none of the benefits.  

 

And yes of course he's popular among us loud mouth Republicans, he's what we expect when we vote Republican, and he wins elections.  I assume he wins elections thanks in large part to people who don't happen to be "loud mouth" Republicans.  Seems the loudness of the anti Walker crowd doesn't match the political reality that people think he's a fine guy to lead Wisconsin.  If that success can translate to Ohio Michigan Iowa Pennsylvania Colorado or Florida he would be the next president.

[TheLeviathan]

 

.  And yes of course he's popular among us loud mouth Republicans, he's what we expect when we vote Republican, and he wins elections.  I assume he wins elections thanks in large part to people who don't happen to be "loud mouth" Republicans.  Seems the loudness of the anti Walker crowd doesn't match the political reality that people think he's a fine guy to lead Wisconsin.  If that success can translate to Ohio Michigan Iowa Pennsylvania Colorado or Florida he would be the next president.

 

My problem with him stems from the fact that he looks like a shill.  The guy has never been anything but a political lackey who seems to say what he thinks people want him to say because being a politician is all he's ever been.  I'm immediately distrustful of anyone who has stayed in government their entire life.

 

He "union busted" the unions that didn't support him and protected the ones that did.  His answer on ISIS is what I'd expect from a guy whose entire history is small time Wisconsin politics.  He was behind idiotic voter ID laws.  But maybe worst of all - isn't the point of pure fiscal conservatism to get out of the way and create jobs?

 

I'm pretty sure Wisconsin is dead last in job creation under him.  I'm not sure that's much to run on.

[mikecgrimes]

I know statistics can be used a lot of different ways but Wisconsin does not rank last in job creation under Scott Walker.  Beyond that historic data would have told us Barack Obama could not win a second term with the job #'s at the time of the 2012 election.  The Democrats will beat up Walker on job #'s, but the fact of the matter is he's won 2 elections in the last 2 years in a swing state.  Nobody needs to comprehend why people vote for him to understand he might be a decent candidate.  If he's not ready for the national stage chances are he will fall apart long before the general election, but if he makes it through this field of Republicans I think even Democrats would have to admit he knows how to win elections.

 

 BTW Voter ID polls pretty well.  It might be a solution to a problem you don't think exists, but I'm pretty sure the problem does exist, and I would imagine most in support of it support it for that reason.  I'm gonna try not to get in to much back and forth but the Scott Walker bashing crowd is the worst of politics.  So you disagree with someone politically, oh well.

[stringer bell]

I loathe what Republicans have done to elections. All manner of attempts to put their thumbs on the scale--ridiculous Voter ID laws, reduction in voting hours, fewer polling places and overzealous registration procedures. Combine that with aggressive gerrymandering and the money game and Repuublicans have really distorted what I see is the will of the electorate.

 

The behavior of our state's Republican party during the Senate recount in 2008-9 was a low light I won't soon forget.