2016 Presidential Race AND POLL

JSS2306 said:

Bernie sounds like my type of guy... but how do you look past the black-lives-matter movement which endorses guys like Mike Brown, whom attacked a police officer...............

Click to expand...

Fuck off.

Pioneer10 said:

No computer your so can't read the tables. How well did the predicted outcome match with the final election day voting with the Ryan selection? Not real convinced with predicted probabilities alone

Click to expand...

Ryan was only predicted to have a 0.7% increase in voting, so it is impossible to gauge outside of the MoE; however, historically, net favorable home state VP candidates provide +2.2 pct in that given state - on average - since 1920.

Sitting governors and senators are at +3.1 pct; and +3.6 since 1945, again on average.

The effect is not negligible. It won't flip a blue state red, like Wisconsin or Pennsylvania; but it could mean winning a true battleground state like Ohio or Florida.

JSS2306 said:

Bernie sounds like my type of guy... but how do you look past the black-lives-matter movement which endorses guys like Mike Brown, whom attacked a police officer while seated in his vehicle after he strong arm robbed a store clerk, yet rudely protests his speeches for saying that "all lives matter."

You've spent so much time defending the likes of Brown to the point that you've labeled myself racists multiple times and I legit find it interesting that you support a wide variety of Sanders proposals which I agree with.

Either Bernie makes sense or you supported an extreme view of racially divisive rhetoric that actually works against racial camaraderie in this country.

Bernie's own website pretty much sideswipes the entire "police are to blame" rhetoric that permeates through the media and takes a much more realistic approach with education.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/nyt-learning-from-the-ferguson-tragedy

I'm curious as to how you compute this message and at the same time disagree with me. It's literally everything I believe in after weighing factual information vs. media frenzy.

Click to expand...

How is "free" college for everyone a possibility?

Bill Walton. said:

I just don't like old people. I did that stupid poll thing you guys have been doing and they recommended Jeb Bush or Christie..

I was kinda pissed cuz Jeb Bush is a total douche. Christie is kinda cool. Looks like the kind guy I'd have a beer with and maybe do shrooms with..

Problem I have with voting is that I don't really care who runs the country. It really doesn't matter and my vote will never matter (love saying that to politic heads to watch them whig out)[awesome political joke there btw]

I'll probably just vote for Trump out of pure entertainment. I was raised republican and truly don't care and would vote for whomever I preferred. Like if Bill Walton ran for president as democrat I'd instantly vote for him.

I just really hate politics but I feel like I should care and may in fact care... But I don't.. Sometimes I think I care and I really don't. Sometimes I think I don't care and I really do. Other times I think I do and I do.. Just kinda confusing really.

Click to expand...

We don't care.

gourimoko said:

Depends.

If Bernie keeps getting crowds like this, the Democrats have a shot at winning the Senate back and a long long shot at winning the House.

I actually think the Democrats will win the Senate in 2016; they need 4 seats with the Presidency, and I think that can be done.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Sanders carries 220 Congressional districts giving Democrats a slight lead in the House. Looking at his crowds, we can imagine that this is a faint possibility.

If all that's the case, then I think you'd see massive reform.

Sanders wants completely subsidized education for everyone all the way through graduate school.

He's openly calling for an FDR-style massive public works program to build infrastructure; something I've talked about for years.

He states openly that the United States must adopt a single-payer Medicare-for-All health care program, and that the government must recognize healthcare as a right.

If you want to know what of these things he can get done, it really depends on if the Democrats control Congress.

If they control Congress, I think you'd see a big push for a lot of these things. Medicare-for-All isn't as difficult as it sounds. It can be approached simply as an opt-in program to Obamacare.

The public works program is something almost every Democrat supports, even some Republicans. With enough pork, you'd likely get enough Republican members to sign off on such a program.

The free school program would require the Democrats to control the House; at least, the program Sanders' has discussed previously.

Now, if Democrats can't regain control of Congress, then essentially Sanders would run into the same obstructionism than Obama has.

So, there would be no sweeping changes in that instance.

It's important that Americans realize that divided government does not work.

Click to expand...

And if I don't want to pay for healthcare without getting fined, how does that work?

gourimoko said:

Depends.

If Bernie keeps getting crowds like this, the Democrats have a shot at winning the Senate back and a long long shot at winning the House.

I actually think the Democrats will win the Senate in 2016; they need 4 seats with the Presidency, and I think that can be done.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Sanders carries 220 Congressional districts giving Democrats a slight lead in the House. Looking at his crowds, we can imagine that this is a faint possibility.

If all that's the case, then I think you'd see massive reform.

Sanders wants completely subsidized education for everyone all the way through graduate school.

He's openly calling for an FDR-style massive public works program to build infrastructure; something I've talked about for years.

He states openly that the United States must adopt a single-payer Medicare-for-All health care program, and that the government must recognize healthcare as a right.

If you want to know what of these things he can get done, it really depends on if the Democrats control Congress.

If they control Congress, I think you'd see a big push for a lot of these things. Medicare-for-All isn't as difficult as it sounds. It can be approached simply as an opt-in program to Obamacare.

The public works program is something almost every Democrat supports, even some Republicans. With enough pork, you'd likely get enough Republican members to sign off on such a program.

The free school program would require the Democrats to control the House; at least, the program Sanders' has discussed previously.

Now, if Democrats can't regain control of Congress, then essentially Sanders would run into the same obstructionism than Obama has.

So, there would be no sweeping changes in that instance.

It's important that Americans realize that divided government does not work.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, the only way the Dems win the House back is after the next Census and redistricting. After their latest round of timid and callow behavior by distancing themselves from the president in 2014, I don't see them putting their neck out there to make big changes unless they are safe politically. Voter fatigue after eight years of a Democratic president leaves Dem senators in purple states especially vulnerable and unwilling to embrace sweeping changes from the left. It will be Obama all over again, where a Democratic majority in the Senate will be in name only and overly optimistic people will be disappointed when the realities of our system of government set in.

If Sanders continues his present rhetoric as president, it will all but ossify the government. It plays well in solidly blue states, but that's not the majority of the country in terms of political power, and certainly not 60 senators. I agree with him on the issues, but it is just not practical governance.

FiveThous said:

And if I don't want to pay for healthcare without getting fined, how does that work?

Click to expand...

Let me ask you this. In what realistic scenario do you not pay for health care under the system prior to Obamacare?

Because you were still paying for Medicare and social security.

All Sanders is saying is that if you tax everyone for Medicare then they should be able to enjoy it as a benefit immediately not when they are 65.

And I have no problem with an opt out so long as you can't easily opt back in.

gourimoko said:

Let me ask you this. In what realistic scenario do you not pay for health care under the system prior to Obamacare?

Because you were still paying for Medicare and social security.

All Sanders is saying is that if you tax everyone for Medicare then they should be able to enjoy it as a benefit immediately not when they are 65.

And I have no problem with an opt out so long as you can't easily opt back in.

Click to expand...

Exactly, I hate being forced to pay something I don't think I need at THIS point in my life. The Medicare angle is interesting, I've never thought of it like that.

A one-time high-ranking political adviser to Al Goretells ABC News that a group of friends and former aides are having a “soft conversation” about the possibility that Gore run for president in 2016.

The adviser cautions that there have been no formal or even informal moves by Gore himself -– but that the former vice president has not ruled out anything. This was first reported by BuzzFeed.

Gore ran for president in 2000 and was successful in clinching the Democratic nomination, but ultimately lost the general election to George W. Bush.


This comes, of course, as the current vice president, Joe Biden, spends time with family this month mulling his own bid.

The Gore conversations are not as far along as those for Biden, who has also not ruled out a run.

It’s all against the backdrop of growing concern in the Democratic Party about Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

A poll this week in New Hampshire had her trailing Bernie Sanders, the first time a major poll this election cycle has shown anyone other than Hillary Clinton to be leading the field.

A Gore spokeswoman told the Tennessean newspaper that the former vice president is not exploring a run.

NasstyNate said:

In my opinion, the only way the Dems win the House back is after the next Census and redistricting.

Click to expand...

As I said before, it's a long shot; but to say it's out of reach this early in the cycle would be very premature.

NasstyNate said:

After their latest round of timid and callow behavior by distancing themselves from the president in 2014, I don't see them putting their neck out there to make big changes unless they are safe politically.

Click to expand...

This is generally the Democratic caucus in a nutshell, but many Democrats are simply unimpressed with the President's progress and agenda so by 2014 there was a good deal of voter disillusionment. You can only break so many promises before you begin to lose your base and that's essentially what has happened with Barack Obama.

NasstyNate said:

Voter fatigue after eight years of a Democratic president leaves Dem senators in purple states especially vulnerable and unwilling to embrace sweeping changes from the left.

Click to expand...

Err.. I don't know how much this is true; in fact, I actually disagree.

Only 1/3rd of Senators at any given moment would be in contention during a Presidential election and there are generally only a handful of Democratic senators in red states to begin with.

In 2014, the Democratic senators in red states all backed their votes for Obamacare and didn't retreat from the issue.

This was proof that the problem with the DSCC strategy that Democrats needed to portray themselves as being centrists and even conservative on some issues doesn't work as you are overreaching for independent voters while losing the base that put you into office.

NasstyNate said:

It will be Obama all over again, where a Democratic majority in the Senate will be in name only

Click to expand...

Second time you've said this in this thread.

The first time, I wrote a long response that I guess was too long, detailing how and why this myth is simply not true but my post somehow didn't make it past the reply button unfortunately.

Suffice to say, it's incorrect to say the Democrats had a majority in name only, both literally and in the way you likely meant it. They did indeed achieve a super-majority.

I can detail how if you like.

NasstyNate said:

and overly optimistic people will be disappointed when the realities of our system of government set in.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what this means... People should expect politicians to fulfill campaign promises. Democrats could learn a bit from Republicans on this front.

NasstyNate said:

If Sanders continues his present rhetoric as president, it will all but ossify the government.

Click to expand...

That remains to be seen.

NasstyNate said:

It plays well in solidly blue states, but that's not the majority of the country in terms of political power,

Click to expand...

I disagree. The majority of the country, whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent, generally agree with Sanders on many of the issues regardless of his label as a Democratic Socialist.

NasstyNate said:

and certainly not 60 senators.

Click to expand...

Many Democrats argue that this rule should be done away with; and I'm one of them.

NasstyNate said:

I agree with him on the issues, but it is just not practical governance.

Click to expand...

Well, we're a big tent party and there is room for lots of political ideologies including those willing to compromise for the sake of compromise. The only thing I would add is that sometimes a compromise approach is worse than doing nothing.

I obviously disagree with your position, but more so on what you consider "practical governance," as if governing from the center was the only way forward. I don't think that's the case at all, as Republican Presidents like Reagan, and W. Bush successfully lead Presidencies - under divided government - in a very conservative, right-leaning manner.

I tend to believe that this tendency for Democrats to so willingly concede their position, this self-defeatist attitude that leads to a lack of strong leadership, is a weakness. Again, liberals would be better served learning from conservatives in this regard, I think.

Scrote Squad said:

A one-time high-ranking political adviser to Al Goretells ABC News that a group of friends and former aides are having a “soft conversation” about the possibility that Gore run for president in 2016.

The adviser cautions that there have been no formal or even informal moves by Gore himself -– but that the former vice president has not ruled out anything. This was first reported by BuzzFeed.

Gore ran for president in 2000 and was successful in clinching the Democratic nomination, but ultimately lost the general election to George W. Bush.


This comes, of course, as the current vice president, Joe Biden, spends time with family this month mulling his own bid.

The Gore conversations are not as far along as those for Biden, who has also not ruled out a run.

It’s all against the backdrop of growing concern in the Democratic Party about Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

A poll this week in New Hampshire had her trailing Bernie Sanders, the first time a major poll this election cycle has shown anyone other than Hillary Clinton to be leading the field.

A Gore spokeswoman told the Tennessean newspaper that the former vice president is not exploring a run.

Click to expand...

This is a way Gore can get a hold of donors and make a play at getting back into the game. Not necessarily into office, but into politics.

FiveThous said:

Exactly, I hate being forced to pay something I don't think I need at THIS point in my life. The Medicare angle is interesting, I've never thought of it like that.

Click to expand...

I know.. This is a big problem with insurance in general; no one needs it until they do.

Everyone wants to wait until they're in their 50's to get insurance, not realizing that simply drives up prices for everyone and makes it too expensive for most people.

This is why society has a tax system, exactly for this reason.

But, I agree in general that we shouldn't be forced to purchase private insurance on the open market; that's bullshit. If there is a mandate, there better be a social program that I can opt-in to that gives me low rates, even if price fixing is involved, it better be imminently affordable.

As of right now, that isn't the case. Medicare-for-All, in various implementations, would essentially solve that problem.

gourimoko said:

Err.. I don't know how much this is true; in fact, I actually disagree.

Only 1/3rd of Senators at any given moment would be in contention during a Presidential election and there are generally only a handful of Democratic senators in red states to begin with.

Click to expand...

I said purple states. Or, more specifically, states which are not solidly one way or another and where the sitting senator can be voted out with only a few percentage point shift. There are many in that position. Further, it is not only the senators up during the presidential election that I am talking about. It applies more to senators up for election in a non presidential year where the electorate skews Republican. In 2018, 23 of 33 senators up for re-election are Democrats, and many of those are purple states.

Second time you've said this in this thread.

The first time, I wrote a long response that I guess was too long, detailing how and why this myth is simply not true but my post somehow didn't make it past the reply button unfortunately.

Suffice to say, it's incorrect to say the Democrats had a majority in name only, both literally and in the way you likely meant it. They did indeed achieve a super-majority.

I can detail how if you like.

Click to expand...

That's too bad. I'd appreciate the cliff notes and hope you address Franken not sitting until July of 2009 and Kennedy's illness preventing him from voting to overcome a fillibuster.

I'm not sure what this means... People should expect politicians to fulfill campaign promises. Democrats could learn a bit from Republicans on this front.

Click to expand...

It means people have unrealistic expectations of what can be done from the office of the president. They expect him to govern as a king and do not understand that Congress is more powerful when it comes to making or changing law. And then when the president is unable to act like a king, they call it broken campaign promises.

Well, we're a big tent party and there is room for lots of political ideologies including those willing to compromise for the sake of compromise. The only thing I would add is that sometimes a compromise approach is worse than doing nothing.

Click to expand...

Has that happened during this presidency?

I obviously disagree with your position, but more so on what you consider "practical governance," as if governing from the center was the only way forward. I don't think that's the case at all, as Republican Presidents like Reagan, and W. Bush successfully lead Presidencies - under divided government - in a very conservative, right-leaning manner.

I tend to believe that this tendency for Democrats to so willingly concede their position, this self-defeatist attitude that leads to a lack of strong leadership, is a weakness. Again, liberals would be better served learning from conservatives in this regard, I think.

Click to expand...

I consider practical governance proposing policies and laws that actually have a chance of passing. Otherwise it's just a bunch of hot air and the county is worse off.

NasstyNate said:

I said purple states. Or, more specifically, states which are not solidly one way or another and where the sitting senator can be voted out with only a few percentage point shift. There are many in that position. Further, it is not only the senators up during the presidential election that I am talking about. It applies more to senators up for election in a non presidential year where the electorate skews Republican. In 2018, 23 of 33 senators up for re-election are Democrats, and many of those are purple states.


That's too bad. I'd appreciate the cliff notes and hope you address Franken not sitting until July of 2009 and Kennedy's illness preventing him from voting to overcome a fillibuster.


It means people have unrealistic expectations of what can be done from the office of the president. They expect him to govern as a king and do not understand that Congress is more powerful when it comes to making or changing law. And then when the president is unable to act like a king, they call it broken campaign promises.


Has that happened during this presidency?


I consider practical governance proposing policies and laws that actually have a chance of passing. Otherwise it's just a bunch of hot air and the county is worse off.

Click to expand...

.