2016 Presidential Race AND POLL

[gourimoko]

Love Bernie Sanders.

But is he too old?

With age often comes wisdom.

I'd trust Bernie at 73 before I'd trust a clown like Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio in their 40s.

 

[Jack Brickman]

With age often comes wisdom.

Doesn't seem to work that way with Republicans. Then again, youth doesn't bring those candidates wisdom either.

Regardless, Crazy Uncle Joe 2016!

 

[gourimoko]

Doesn't seem to work that way with Republicans. Then again, youth doesn't bring those candidates wisdom either.

Regardless, Crazy Uncle Joe 2016!

I was thinking the same thing as I wrote that out.

But, I just never understood the "age" aspect of voting. Like, does it matter how old he is? He's imminently qualified for the position.

I think it's kind of sad that we might consider someone too old for what is essentially a completely intellectual position.

 

[Jack Brickman]

I was thinking the same thing as I wrote that out.

But, I just never understood the "age" aspect of voting. Like, does it matter how old he is? He's imminently qualified for the position.

I think it's kind of sad that we might consider someone too old for what is essentially a completely intellectual position.

Age doesn't matter unless the person looks like they're going to die within four years. Beyond that, don't care.

 

[The Oi]

Reagan was 97 when he went into office.

 

[Pioneer10]

She lost her Senate race in California, but she didn't exactly "bomb out". She lost by 10 pts. to an incumbent Democrat in a heavily Democratic states that both McCain and Romney lost by more than 20 pts. in 2008 and 2012. Hillary will be much easier to attack than was Boxer.



Yeah, I think she'd be perfect for that. She not only adds the gender element, but she can credibly claim to understand China and the tech sector better than anyone else running, and that's clearly an important issue moving forward. Might be amusing to hear her take on Hillary's email issue. "How can you lead this country moving forward into a tech century if you can't even understand the most basic aspects of email?" Hyperbole, sure, but the email press has been bad enough that it would sting.

I live in California and 2010 was a wave year (off cycle so presidenatial numbers dont tell you much as Republicans perform much better) and was as good of a shot Republicans could get in California in years. Fiorina quickly despite this really never had any momentum. People who work for her really really do not like her and all Boxer did was run ads about Fiorina time at HP and the campaign was essentially over

Sent from my Lenovo TAB 2 A10-70F using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Walton.]

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.

 

[Damien O'Connel]

With age often comes wisdom.

I'd trust Bernie at 73 before I'd trust a clown like Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio in their 40s.

Right but I don't think anyone can argue that this is the most stressful job in the world.

Look at how aged most look at the end of their presidency.

Wasn't alive for it, but I've read that Reagan's effectiveness waned towards the end and his age showed.

Bernie will be a full 5 years older.

And pushing the agenda that he's pushing will require a lot of energy and peresistance.

Dicey subject, probably unfair, but maybe valid.

 

[gourimoko]

Right but I don't think anyone can argue that this is the most stressful job in the world.

Look at how aged most look at the end of their presidency.

Wasn't alive for it, but I've read that Reagan's effectiveness waned towards the end and his age showed.

Bernie will be a full 5 years older.

And pushing the agenda that he's pushing will require a lot of energy and peresistance.

Dicey subject, probably unfair, but maybe valid.

It's widely believed that Reagan was suffering from dementia during his 1983 Presidential campaign. It wasn't necessarily his age; he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's.

Of course, that's an age-related illness, as is dementia in general; but I don't think that's any reason to vote for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.

I also think that's really the role of the Vice President and why you don't pick someone like Sarah Palin or Dan Quayle as a running mate.

 

[gourimoko]

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.

I guess it all depends on what matters to you.. and if nothing really does, maybe someone close to you would be benefited with different social policies.

 

[The Oi]

So Bernie Sanders is President...

What changes?

 

[Bill Walton.]

So Bernie Sanders is President...

What changes?

Social security will be no longer..

Instead seniors will be paid in Werthers originals

 

[gourimoko]

So Bernie Sanders is President...

What changes?

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.

 

[JSS2306]

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.

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.

 

[Pioneer10]

The empirical data does not follow with your conclusion. It shows that home-state advantage can amount for substantial gains in particular states.

There are numerous aggregates the show this...

Here is an analyst of Mitt Romney's 2012 VP selection options and their predicted influence (net) on the state's popular vote when factoring home-state favorability:

As you can see, for the vast majority of candidates, there is a predicted positive impact on state voting.

The vetted candidates for Romney at the time were Rubio, Christie, Bush, Toomey, Portman, Ryan, McDonnell and Pawlenty.

Romney's team looked at these numbers and made a logical choice based on a few factors:

Premise: Romney's weakness is with the Republican base, social conservatives, including evangelicals and particularly Catholics who might not vote for a Mormon candidate.

1) They believed they would need to win Florida by themselves; and that if they couldn't, then the rest of the states didn't matter. This was a logical, but flawed strategy.

2) That Portman was too liberal, and would not bring Ohio while likely alienating social conservatives.

3) That Pennsylvania was blue; regardless of what the media says for entertainment value. (-Toomey)

4) That Bush wants to be President in 2016, not Vice President in 2012 or running on a failed ticket.

5) That New Hampshire, New Jersey and Nevada were out of reach.

6) McDonnell was the most logical choice, being a popular governor; but he did get through the vetting process.

So Romney's team was left with few options.

The best choices remaining are Rubio, Bush (w/terms), and Ryan.

If I were ranking those choices I'd likely pick:

-Rubio
-Bush
-Ryan

Romney was not interested in negotiating terms with Bush, and even though Rubio desperately wanted the nod; Romney never seriously considered him as being "ready to lead on Day 1." His reasons are believed to have been more personal.

These two men do not like each other, and Romney felt that Rubio's position on immigration (at the time being much more liberal than it is today) would not resonate with conservative voters. There was also fear that a Mormon/Cuban ticket would not bode well in the South.

Romney's pick was Pawlenty - but his team strongly advised him to pick someone who shored up his weaknesses with Catholics and the Republican base, and Pawlenty did very little in that regard. So the team settled on the bright, telegenic, and smart Paul Ryan, a devout Catholic, ultra pro-life conservative which the base loved.

It wasn't the worst pick, but had Romney went with Rubio or Bush, or if McDonnell wasn't under investigation at the time, Romney would have had a better shot.

For example, in 2012, Barack Obama won Florida by less than 75,000 votes.

Obama won 48% of the Cuban American vote in Florida, up from 35% in 2008 in just 4 years, on a less than stellar campaign.

Had Romney picked Rubio, he would not have needed to campaign in Florida as much only to lose and could have put that campaign money to better use in Ohio and Virginia.

So yes, the VP nomination makes a huge difference to the prospects of the ticket. This other person on the ticket is doing 50%+ of the campaigning. Rubio is well liked in Florida, and brings the demographics you need to win that state. He's also young, Catholic, and pro-life and he can resonate with Catholic voters.

Romney made a mistake by not picking based on the above information and assuming he could get by with Pawlenty or Ryan.
-

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

Sent from my Lenovo TAB 2 A10-70F using Tapatalk