U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-06-2015, 04:35 PM
 
Location: MPLS
752 posts, read 447,273 times
Reputation: 458

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PanapolicRiddle View Post
"That said, I'm one of the many who fell for Obama's inspired, powerful campaign. I thought he would truly work to transform this country, but instead he's turned out to be a mostly fairly standard politician."
Your disappointment stems not from Barack Obama, but from the system he's forced to operate in. Unlike a parliamentary system, our government places significant impediments on a leader's ability to enact his/her agenda. Nonetheless, I think there's little reason for disappointment: unless the next two years unfold calamitously, Obama will have passed the most significant domestic legislation (ACA, Dodd-Frank, student loan reform, repeal of don't ask/tell, etc.) since LBJ, while avoiding anything comparable to Johnson's disastrous foreign policy mistake (Vietnam). He (with some assistance from George W. Bush) will have prevented an all-out economic collapse, as well as tidied up the foreign policy faux pas of his predecessor and eliminated the architect of 9/11. In all likelihood, the EPA will begin regulating carbon emissions sometime in the next year, and the construction of new coal-fired power plants will become economically unfeasible. On the whole, my prediction is that Obama will be viewed by historians as the greatest president since Dwight Eisenhower or Harry Truman.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-06-2015, 06:11 PM
 
Location: NoVa
803 posts, read 1,364,915 times
Reputation: 864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
I don't see how quoting e few GOP crazies means the GOP will never field a moderate woman.

If Libby Dole wanted to run, she would be appealing-though probably way too old, and I think Susana Martinez would also be a possibility, or Carly Fiorina. I am not sure I would vote for any of them, but I don't think any of them would go for this rape stuff. The question is whether the GOP would nominate a moderate woman over someone like Bachmann or Palin. The party has lurched right, so it is hard to know.

Martinez seems like she could be a lightweight, but if she made it into a debate with Clinton and survived, that image would rise or fall.

In any case, it is largely about demographics. The first woman president has to get women, minorities, and a sizable share of white men. I see Clinton failing with the last group. A moderate republican might do better.

I agree that a moderate is what they need, but there aren't many true moderates left. Olympia Snowe comes to mind, but I believe she has retired from politics for good. Still, I think the GOP needs to address their image/message problem, especially when demographics are changing every election cycle. I don't think white men would be Clinton's downfall, since they break 2:1 for the Republican candidate or something like that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 10:20 PM
 
1,721 posts, read 1,002,593 times
Reputation: 1117
Quote:
Originally Posted by juneaubound View Post
I'm not even sure that she would be competent. I haven't followed Hillary Clinton closely over the years so if she has tangible accomplishments as a NY state senator I would be interested in knowing what those accomplishments were. I cannot think of anything tangible and long lasting that she accomplished as SofS. If she has tangible accomplishments from a time before she became First Lady I would also be interested in learning about what she did.
Most who worked with her as SOS think she was outstanding. Supposedly even many Republicans have privately acknowledged this. At one time I know she was close friends with John McCain; she might still be, but I'm not sure.

Barring some unforeseen disqualifies (health issues, etc.), she seems virtually unstoppable. Even if she's just running as a continuation of Bill's presidency, that will probably appeal to many since the Clinton years were so great (robust economy, few major military conflicts, no major security concerns). She'll also probably get at least some support from older women who probably wouldn't otherwise vote Democratic. So, again, let's look at the demographics of her likely strongest supporters: women, minorities, younger voters, college educated voters (regardless of ethnicity and gender). Sure, she'll be weak with older male voters (her support from older female voters probably won't be great, but better than any other Democrat), and that might prevent it from being a landslide, but she'd still win comfortably. I just don't see anyone who can plausibly challenge her right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael View Post
Your disappointment stems not from Barack Obama, but from the system he's forced to operate in. Unlike a parliamentary system, our government places significant impediments on a leader's ability to enact his/her agenda. Nonetheless, I think there's little reason for disappointment: unless the next two years unfold calamitously, Obama will have passed the most significant domestic legislation (ACA, Dodd-Frank, student loan reform, repeal of don't ask/tell, etc.) since LBJ, while avoiding anything comparable to Johnson's disastrous foreign policy mistake (Vietnam). He (with some assistance from George W. Bush) will have prevented an all-out economic collapse, as well as tidied up the foreign policy faux pas of his predecessor and eliminated the architect of 9/11. In all likelihood, the EPA will begin regulating carbon emissions sometime in the next year, and the construction of new coal-fired power plants will become economically unfeasible. On the whole, my prediction is that Obama will be viewed by historians as the greatest president since Dwight Eisenhower or Harry Truman.
I guess for me it's a question of quality vs quantity. For instance, while the ACA and Dodd-Frank are certainly better than nothing, they're both significantly watered down because the insurance lobby and financial industry had far too much influence. On paper he seems to have accomplished quite a bit, but qualitatively I think he could've done much better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 10:38 PM
 
302 posts, read 165,025 times
Reputation: 99
As a Democrat I don't want her to be nominated.

She is Mitt Romney except a Democrat. Her economic views(and connections) are so close the Republican side she may as well be republican, and she is a complete hawk on foreign affairs(not that I necessarily disagree with that). I would rather have Warren run as she seems more sincere. Sanders would be cool if he wasn't socialist(by his own admittance).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 11:51 PM
 
1,721 posts, read 1,002,593 times
Reputation: 1117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logical Paradox View Post
As a Democrat I don't want her to be nominated.

She is Mitt Romney except a Democrat. Her economic views(and connections) are so close the Republican side she may as well be republican, and she is a complete hawk on foreign affairs(not that I necessarily disagree with that). I would rather have Warren run as she seems more sincere. Sanders would be cool if he wasn't socialist(by his own admittance).
I doubt Warren would run, as she doesn't want to do anything to curtail the chances of the first viable female candidate. Sanders isn't electable since, yes, he's an outright socialist (not that that's bad), and he also often comes off as emotionally unstable and unprofessional.

While Hilary isn't the type of unapologetic liberal much of the Democratic base wants, there don't seem to many running, and the ones that are probably aren't electable. What? Are they going to trot out Howard Dean again?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2015, 12:46 AM
 
302 posts, read 165,025 times
Reputation: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanapolicRiddle View Post
I doubt Warren would run, as she doesn't want to do anything to curtail the chances of the first viable female candidate. Sanders isn't electable since, yes, he's an outright socialist (not that that's bad), and he also often comes off as emotionally unstable and unprofessional.
The emotionally unstable part is, honestly, not that big of a con, considering McCain was the same. Personally I prefer more emotional candidates, that get passionate whem speaking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanapolicRiddle View Post
While Hilary isn't the type of unapologetic liberal much of the Democratic base wants, there don't seem to many running, and the ones that are probably aren't electable. What? Are they going to trot out Howard Dean again?
They aren't running because Hillary is perceived, and most likely is, unstoppable. Honestly, I might prefer a Republican victory because that would mean the Rep loses a lot of its popularity as the Dems did when Obama won.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2015, 02:56 AM
 
Location: western East Roman Empire
6,559 posts, read 10,628,239 times
Reputation: 5655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logical Paradox View Post

... Her economic views (and connections) are so close the Republican side she may as well be republican ...
In the same way that the Bushes may as well be democrats. There is very little difference between them. This time around, Jeb is fluent in Spanish, for what it's worth.

In any case, history over the past three decades or so of the Bush/Clinton era shows that the US has enjoyed more effective Constitutional governance when there is a democrat President and a republican majority Congress (control of at least the House and at least forty-one, that's 41, senators). Nonetheless, if Jeb and Hillary are the two candidates in 2016, I would probably vote for Jeb, only because he is from my home state, and hope for the best: normally I would split the ticket in some way and I have been pretty much satisfied with the concrete results in the 1990s and again in recent years.




Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael View Post
Obama will have passed ... significant domestic legislation (ACA, Dodd-Frank, student loan reform, repeal of don't ask/tell, etc.) since LBJ, while avoiding anything comparable to Johnson's disastrous foreign policy mistake (Vietnam). He (with some assistance from George W. Bush) will have prevented an all-out economic collapse, as well as tidied up the foreign policy faux pas of his predecessor and eliminated the architect of 9/11. In all likelihood, the EPA will begin regulating carbon emissions sometime in the next year, and the construction of new coal-fired power plants will become economically unfeasible.
You forgot his most significant achievements:

1) he increased the federal estate tax exemption by as much as ten-fold, and even indexed it to inflation;

2) he made the current federal marginal tax rate curve, which was intended to be temporary, permanent (with the exception of the very top marginal rate), as well as the qualified dividend tax; moreover, basically the whole smorgasbord of deductions, credits and exemptions are still in place, many of which indexed to inflation, such that the overall effective tax rate is about the same at around 17% (what a deal!: I'd be satisfied with even up to 20%, God bless America!);

3) he has implemented a record number of deportations of illegal immigrants and on a reasonable basis;

4) he gifted the health insurance companies millions of captive customers, forcing them into expensive and complicated high deductible plans, and did not implement a single-payer system despite a golden opportunity to do so, apparently;

5) as you mentioned, he continues the policy of assassinating US oil company renegade enemies abroad, but, indeed, with much fewer troops on the battlefield, dabbling instead in major conflicts largely through proxies, arms sales, and high technology weaponry;

6) he has stayed the hell out of the way of a slow economic recovery, domestic oil drilling has been so successful that it appears to be its own worst enemy in terms of current prices, and military and insurance stocks have been booming.


Those are some pretty impressive conservative credentials.


Again, pretty much satisfied with the concrete results.

I'll take that deal any decade.

Do you think Jebillary would screw it up?

Last edited by bale002; 01-07-2015 at 03:12 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2015, 09:56 AM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,995 posts, read 11,641,669 times
Reputation: 5579
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASOT View Post
I agree that a moderate is what they need, but there aren't many true moderates left. Olympia Snowe comes to mind, but I believe she has retired from politics for good. Still, I think the GOP needs to address their image/message problem, especially when demographics are changing every election cycle. I don't think white men would be Clinton's downfall, since they break 2:1 for the Republican candidate or something like that.
Bingo. Someone like Olympia Snowe would be great. The GOP is doing their darndest to purge such people though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2015, 04:39 PM
 
1,721 posts, read 1,002,593 times
Reputation: 1117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logical Paradox View Post
The emotionally unstable part is, honestly, not that big of a con, considering McCain was the same. Personally I prefer more emotional candidates, that get passionate whem speaking.

They aren't running because Hillary is perceived, and most likely is, unstoppable. Honestly, I might prefer a Republican victory because that would mean the Rep loses a lot of its popularity as the Dems did when Obama won.
While highly candidates might be more inspiring, I generally don't think they're generally good in more cerebral, managerial positions like POTUS. Emotion needs to be tempered with intellect, and Bernie just won't go over well in that sense.

In terms of Hilary v Jeb, many said essentially the same thing about Gore and W. I don't think there's any doubt a Gore presidency would've been significantly different: Gore almost certainly would not have invaded Iraq, and just as significantly would not have enacted the reckless tax cuts Bush did.

I know Hilary and Jeb are both establishment candidates, but the special interests controlling the Democrats aren't as pernicious as the special interests controlling Republicans. To be sure, there is significant overlap (financial and insurance industry, corporations), but at least some special interests on the Democratic side are respectable (environmentalists, unions, social justice advocates).

Sorry, but thinking there wouldn't be significant differences between Hilary and Jeb is delusional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2015, 05:10 PM
 
9,985 posts, read 6,735,019 times
Reputation: 5612
I am starting to think Hillary won't run.. too many skeltons..
Clintons are getting old and might not be up to warding them off
anymore.. better to try and keep them under the rug and enjoy
what's left of their lives. I'm thinking Bush vs Webb with the fix
in for Bush.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:13 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top