2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election speculation

Unread postby James » Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:39 pm

Jeb Bush makes me sad. Some of the things he's said as his party has gradually turned against him just break my heart. Funny thing, here—going in one of the last things I wanted to see was 'dynasties' forming in the presidency, so no Clinton or Bush. But looking at the lengths to which some of Bush's political opponents have gone to appeal to the extremism behind Trump and Cruz has at least left me with some respect for Jeb—he could have doubled down and played the game, but instead he's allowed the game to move away from him.

Sure, he's taken his swipes, but looking at the big picture he's coming out as one of the more sensible Republicans taking stage through this process. I imagine he'll bow out any time now, though...
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17954
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby WeiWenDi » Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:52 am

James wrote:How is Donald Trump less extreme? Almost everything he's said on foreign policy has been backed by absolutely no substance and extremism is the cornerstone of his positions, whether building walls and forcing other countries to pay for them, bombing oil fields or 'bombing the shit' out of this or that, one-upping Ted Cruz' position that waterboarding should be returned by lulzing in the notion that we should bring it back and much worse alternatives along with it. Never mind layers of racism and repeatedly lying about data, opponent views, or heck, even his own views.

In any case, it doesn't really matter, because nothing he's saying on these topics is backed by any sort of intelligent plan or consistency. He's like a machine which spouts off whatever extremist claims he can dream up that might appeal to the anger and disappointment of his voter base.


Listening to his appearance on CBS This Morning a couple of days ago, he certainly did sound like he knew what he was talking about on foreign policy. Trump laid out what looked to me like a very serious, calm and thoughtful realist position on the Middle East - including the pitfalls of our current policy whereby we are arming people whose platform and goals we don't really understand in Syria and Iraq, the unintended consequences of regime change in Libya, the possible benefits of a non-confrontational stance toward Russia. He's a nationalist and a Republican who has to throw red meat to the crowds, of course, and he's great at that. But he actually has a much better grasp of foreign policy than I'd expected - or at the very least, he's asking the right questions and allowing himself to be guided by the right logic.

There are still foreign policy stances of his that I find objectionable - for example, his cosiness with the Saudis - but these stances are shared by practically everyone running. With the exception of Jill Stein, no other presidential candidate wants to stand up to Saudi bullying and destabilisation in a volatile and violence-prone region.

But it's for reasons like this that, of the Republicans remaining in the race, I confess I find Trump the least objectionable. That does not count as an endorsement, by the way. As with your slight inclination toward Kasich, James, consider it more an indictment of the extremism of the GOP as a whole. Trump's stance on waterboarding really does prevent me from voting for the guy, as do his heinous police-state stances on crime.

James wrote:I'd also point out that foreign policy is much bigger than Russia (one area where Trump seems to be very well regarded, including by Putin).


As you can see quite clearly above, I am very well aware of this. However, the sheer, impotently-spiteful, boneheaded stupidity of our government in dealing with Russia is a matter of great concern to me, given that we are both nuclear-armed states and we all stand to lose even from another prolonged 'cold' conflict with Russia.

James wrote:If you're looking for a peaceful candidate Bernie Sanders is a good choice.


I still have some problems with his blindly pro-Saudi stance, or his increasing bias towards Israel. But given his recent performance in the Democratic debate, and in particular his sobering mention of the overthrow of Mosaddegh by the CIA in 1953, I'm actually more inclined to agree with you now about Bernie possibly being a peace candidate.

James wrote:Say, if Trump were to run as an independent he would leech heavily from the Republican Party vote while the Democratic Party vote largely concentrated around it's sole candidate, which could easily turn battleground states blue—and that's enough to have a dramatic impact on the presidential election.


Right. That doesn't matter where I am because my state is going Democratic anyway. Votes are counted at the state level, and then electors cast their ballots at the national level, which is why I say that third-party votes don't count at the national level even though they count at the state level and can swing individual states. My dad still (completely wrongly) blames Nader for Bush's victory in 2000, even though there were so many other factors at play, particularly in the Florida recount, that Nader's role in Bush's appointment to the presidency appears marginal.

James wrote:Yeah, he's certainly not compatible with a view that wants to see Christian values enforced through the state (e.g. gay marriage, abortion). I noticed you had positive words to say for Huckabee who pretty much as devoted his role in government to the opposed effort. But our disagreement on this aside, it's incompatible with the United States constitution. Or at least it should be—since the Republican Party has started to cater votes from the more fundamentalist brand of Republican Christian it has decided otherwise.


Wow. So much wrong with this.

First of all, there is still such a thing as a pro-life Democrat. (At least I hope so; that has more and more described my own stance over the past three or four years.) Pro-life politics and Republicanism are not synonymous, and actually have not been historically, either.

Secondly, not all Christians are pro-lifers and not all pro-lifers are Christians - it is not a necessarily-religious but a moral stance to say that unborn human beings should have some recognition under the law. And it is not a 'fundamentalist' position to be against either gay marriage or abortion. I would invite you to look up the definition of the word 'fundamentalist' and describe how it relates to the politics surrounding either of these two issues.

Thirdly, since when is being against gay marriage or against abortion incompatible with the First Amendment? Are you seriously citing the First Amendment in order to suggest that it be applied selectively, only to grant free-speech rights to religious groups you happen to agree with?

Fourthly, my liking for Huckabee is - was, at this point - based also on his economic stances in favour of labour unions, welfare and care for the elderly, and against free-trade extremism. Incredibly rare in a Republican. And also based on his willingness to reach across the aisle and have civil discussions about controversial policies - also sadly increasingly rare in his party. (Though I find his foreign policy and attitudes toward minorities as distasteful as all the rest.) At this point you know that I have limited patience for being misread.

James wrote:One of the greatest examples is likely the War on Iraq and responding to the Middle East in general. In any case, should he become president he would then have a team of foreign policy advisors and professionals and I think his hesitancy to jump in with military force and established experience would serve us well.


That's reason to be cautiously hopeful. Much will ride on Sanders' ability to form a campaign team, and later a cabinet. We'll see what he does - at this point I'm halfway hoping that he gets Jim Webb on his foreign policy team.
Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.
User avatar
WeiWenDi
Hedgehog Emperor
 
Posts: 3833
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:09 am
Location: L'Étoile du Nord

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby WeiWenDi » Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:49 am

Speaking of Jon Huntsman, tho'. What happened to you, buddy?
Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.
User avatar
WeiWenDi
Hedgehog Emperor
 
Posts: 3833
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:09 am
Location: L'Étoile du Nord

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Sat Mar 05, 2016 12:37 pm

I wonder if one of the big challenges, whoever wins the Presidency, for both parties is how to deal with the (like most of the west) anger in US that has helped Trump's rise (and from what I vaguely gather, helped Sanders). I can't see Clinton being the person to bring back hope and happiness with the political system, whatever her other merits, so how do the parties address it for the future? How do they soothe things down?
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15873
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Shen Ai » Sun Mar 06, 2016 7:50 pm

After Super Tuesday it has become more and more apparent that we're looking at Trump getting the nomination. But now the entire GOP and even Fox news are doing to rip him apart. They even dragged Mitt Romney back from the grave to give him a tongue lashing.

I wonder, is there plan to limit his delegate count by the convention feasible? And if it somehow works, who will be the man to step up?

As the for the Democrats, I'd say Hillary is pretty clearly going to win it now. Taking Mass was a big win, Virginia is a battleground she won, and even Michigan is looking to go her way.
I've a brave warrior in my army. Shen Ai is his name, and he can slay this Hua Xiong.

Wei has no more famous commanders, Shen Ai takes lead of the vanguard!

Even a commoner on the street knows what Shen Ai is thinking!
User avatar
Shen Ai
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:21 pm
Location: That Place You've Been Dreaming Of

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Lord Yang Jiahua » Tue Mar 22, 2016 5:44 am

This thread seems to have paused post super-tuesday...

Rubio gave a great farewell speech in my opinion.


I'm going to toss up a scenario for this election, i'd like to see some thoughts, it also cuts along the lines of what a decent amount of professors in college think, and what most political analysts probably privately predict but won't say.

Hillary Clinton gets an obvious victory and the delegates she needs, and proceeds to the election, i figure as a San Franciscan i haven't seen Bernie Sanders doing much out here, where i'd personally think there'd be socialist leaning people. Also San Francisco is basically the Democrats Bank, come here for free money etc on campaigns ( the amount of Fundraising events here that were very private in the last 2 elections as evidence, for Obama and then Hilary lately).

Trump doesn't win California, Rather Cruz does, and Cruz will evenly divide the votes in the remaining states with Trump as he has done mostly everywhere this election. So Trump 40%, Cruz 33% of the votes etc as has been norm nearly everywhere. I figure that California Republicans aren't exactly as far to the right as the rest of the country, hell, we're the only state where the legislature understands compromise and usually when in agreement has a broad bi-partisan agreement on something.

Aside: Take my State's water crisis for instance, Democrats wanted to spend more on the existing systems, Republicans only real difference to this was a slightly lower spending number and more spending to dams and reservoirs. Both were quite productive and eventually a compromise plan was passed.

Scenario 1:
Trump ends up with a majority of delegates but not enough for a technical nomination. (Cue Gore Vidal and Buckley 64' & 68' punditry)
The Republicans grudgingly support him but someone, say John Kasich for instance, gives a round thinly veiled speech denouncing Trump, Similar to Rockefeller in 64'.
Republicans end up losing, by a decently wide margin but not huge like Goldwater in 64'. Popular vote 58 to 42, Electoral winner (Hillary in this case) around 330.

Scenario 2:
(What the Media is wishing because it will have a field day over)
Cruz and the Conventioneers pip Trump to nomination, and put up Cruz and someone random(not Kasich) on the ticket, Half the Republican Party feels betrayed and either stays away or grudgingly turns out to vote for them.

Hillary ends up winning popular vote 54 to 46, electoral around 300.

Scenario 3:
(Best Possible Scenario)
The Conventioneers pip Trump to the nomination for being too radical, and rather inexperienced(not what i think personally but...) and put up Kasich and Cruz, as the ticket. A chunk of the Republican party feels betrayed, but mainly its the far-right radicals that like Trump and not the common everyday worker type Republican. Kasich ends up barely winning, or they end in a tie and the Senate (like they're supposed to) Votes in the President, im talking 51-49 Kasich over Hillary on the popular vote, and maybe 290 if he's lucky electoral.


I can elaborate more, and this is very inept explaining on my part, as i've recently re-read the near entirety of Gore Vidal's political essays and can go into more detail. I also like to predict a 1964 Election Repeat , which seems logical to me but i'd like to see how other people agree or disagree on this scenario(s).
"We Will Show Wu The Meaning of Fear!"-Cao Cao in DW6
"Politicians Are all the same all over, They Promise to build a bridge even when theres no river"-Nikita Khrushchev
User avatar
Lord Yang Jiahua
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1096
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:24 pm
Location: Well....Not entirely sure if its America anymore

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Sun Fin » Sun Apr 10, 2016 6:55 pm

Ignorant Englishman over here!

I'm seeing articles saying that Bernie is making a comeback against Clinton. Is it too little to late or has he got a genuine chance?
Have a question about a book or academic article before you buy it? Maybe I have it!
Check out my library here for a list of Chinese history resources I have on hand!
User avatar
Sun Fin
Librarian of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 7259
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: Vicar Factory

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Lord Yang Jiahua » Sun Apr 10, 2016 7:07 pm

Dunno really what to make of it, because im seeing articles saying Clinton's lead is too high to be caught.

Bottom line, if Hillary wins New York, Bernie loses. The math says the Bernie needs to win all the remaining Primarys by 55-45 percent margins or more to have a chance.

Even then, he'll only tie on delegates.

On a side note apparently the Right-Wing out here (Rush Limbaugh of all people) wants Bernie to win, because they believe the can shameless smear-ad-campaign him into the ground during the general election. I don't actually listen to that fat jerk, but this is what a number of my professors keeping up with the election tell me.
"We Will Show Wu The Meaning of Fear!"-Cao Cao in DW6
"Politicians Are all the same all over, They Promise to build a bridge even when theres no river"-Nikita Khrushchev
User avatar
Lord Yang Jiahua
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1096
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:24 pm
Location: Well....Not entirely sure if its America anymore

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby ky9ersfan » Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:10 am

Not really into politics, or a voter, but I am interested to see how Hillary versus Trump will play out. She should expand upon, and tweak current policies, and make things even better. Barak had decent ideas, I'm told he just went about things in the wrong way. If anybody can fix this mess, it will be a return to the 90's golden age of Clinton era domestical policies, when it seemed like the nation as a whole was doing much better, with our economy being much stronger.

I am a Democrat at heart, and I hope Hillary will go with a solid vice presidential canidate, someone with experience, and name recognition. ->AND another female political figure, that's right an all female ticket, that would surely be a winner. That's what I would do if I was her, what better way to rally the left, and voters, than to follow Obama with a all female ticket. Two experienced strong female leaders. This what I hope happens anyways.
ky9ersfan
Initiate
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2015 7:53 pm

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Kayzr » Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:00 am

Trump; he has a connection with his people that men like Reagan and Kennedy had. Clinton is soulless and unlikable.
Let us begin with Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken.
For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus.
Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity.
Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus.
For we are indeed his offspring.
Kayzr
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:27 pm
Location: Rome.

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved