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.
I do think that Rand Paul would have attract the highest number of independents and "cross over" voters (Democrats who don't vote for their party) of any candidate running. Rand Paul's non-interventionism, stance on the drug war, and ideas for criminal justice reform would be appealing to civil libertarians and people fed up with endless warfare. I think Rand Paul would have an easier time in the GE than he will in the primary process.
The problem for Paul is that he can't really be himself and get the nomination. His position on immigration, drugs, and some social issues is antithetical to the Republican base.
We're already seeing him veer from his principles, presumably to improve his chance: In announcing his candidacy, he's presenting himself as a conservative family man, rather than focusing on specific issues. Will the base go for it? I doubt it, but we'll see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead
Funny that you mention Romney. I think Clinton is the democratic equivalent of Romney. She wants it, and I do admire her persistence (as I did his), but plenty of people in her own party are not very supportive, just like Mitt, and for the same reasons. Both have the resources and brains for the job, but they lack the charisma and conviction, aka leadership chops. People never really knew what Romney stood for, and after all these years, I don't really know what Clinton wants to do with the presidency. It seems like they both view it as a privilege they have somehow earned. That does not inspire on either side of the aisle.
In many respects I think that's a fair comparison. In some ways I think Hilary is similar to both Gore and HW Bush: All three are non-ideological pragmatists who are highly capable, but less than inspiring in terms of charisma and vision.
But Bill will probably be a significant asset for Hilary. He's the most popular president of the last 50 years, and still viewed favorably by most voters. Compelling research indicates that being associated with a popular figure improves one's chances significantly. Gore was too politically inept to realize this until it was too late: He didn't incorporate Bill into his campaign until a few weeks before the election. Had he used Bill from the get-go (and Bill was certainly willing), he almost certainly would've won.
The problem for Paul is that he can't really be himself and get the nomination. His position on immigration, drugs, and some social issues is antithetical to the Republican base.
We're already seeing him veer from his principles, presumably to improve his chance: In announcing his candidacy, he's presenting himself as a conservative family man, rather than focusing on specific issues. Will the base go for it? I doubt it, but we'll see.
Name one instance of him actually "veering from his principles." Not what Savannah Guthrie says, but him actually changing his principles or flip flopping. He doesn't hide from his positions on immigration, durgs, or social issues either. He was just in Nevada the other day railing against the drug war.
Will just the GOP base vote for Rand Paul? No but I think he can attract enough independents into the GOP primary process and non-traditionally Republican voters to pull it off. People who don't vote, people who vote Libertarian or Constitution Party, or anti-war civil libertarian Democrats could all switch party affiliation for the primaries and pull the lever for Rand. He can also draw on fiscally conservative budget hawks as well as more traditional Republicans who are just fed up with the status quo. One are where Rand has been ahead of the curve is he has been going after Hillary hard over the past 48 hours. By positioning himself as the anti-Hillary Republican he will foster a lot of goodwill from the GOP base. The contrast really couldn't be any sharper either, one is an energetic, principled reformer who wants to end the war on drugs, reign in the budget, and have a reasonable foreign policy. The other one is an unlikable physical embodiment of the establishment with miles of baggage that people have a hard time trusting with no real clear set of principles or ideas.
Name one instance of him actually "veering from his principles." Not what Savannah Guthrie says, but him actually changing his principles or flip flopping. He doesn't hide from his positions on immigration, durgs, or social issues either. He was just in Nevada the other day railing against the drug war.
Will just the GOP base vote for Rand Paul? No but I think he can attract enough independents into the GOP primary process and non-traditionally Republican voters to pull it off. People who don't vote, people who vote Libertarian or Constitution Party, or anti-war civil libertarian Democrats could all switch party affiliation for the primaries and pull the lever for Rand. He can also draw on fiscally conservative budget hawks as well as more traditional Republicans who are just fed up with the status quo. One are where Rand has been ahead of the curve is he has been going after Hillary hard over the past 48 hours. By positioning himself as the anti-Hillary Republican he will foster a lot of goodwill from the GOP base. The contrast really couldn't be any sharper either, one is an energetic, principled reformer who wants to end the war on drugs, reign in the budget, and have a reasonable foreign policy. The other one is an unlikable physical embodiment of the establishment with miles of baggage that people have a hard time trusting with no real clear set of principles or ideas.
Paul has refused to answer some questions about past statements he's made that might be problematic. Poll data indicates he has a tough climb against Hilary. She's ahead by an average of about 7%. It's still early, and things certainly could change, but I just don't think he'll have enough base support to get the nom anyway.
Worst still from demographic standpoint for those not courting Latino vote: On average, Latino citizens are a decade younger than US median age. That means, a much higher % are in the age group likely to have kids, vs US overall. We've just seen the beginning of a tremendous, long-term demographic shift. Embrace it, or get run over by it.
Even that may NOT really matter. Word was Cali had to LOWER its pop growth estimates for the future since many "Hispanics" had FEWER babies than expected in the last few years. Too; more and more "US 1st" Hispanic people are starting to drop the Hispanic label when talking about themselves because the DON'T want anything to do with la raza and illegal aliens. THAT was told to me by a Chicano who "married out"; he straight up said he does NOT ID as a Latino because he can't stand most of their macho culture.
I agree the Dems have a blue wall giving them an advantage to start the Presidential Race and also that the demagraphic trends favor the Dems as well. However, these parties have proven adaptable over time, for example, the Dems went froma racist party favoring whites to a racist party favoring minorities when that got them more votes. Republicans know thaey have to crack the resistance Asians and Hispanics have or they will be shut out of the Presidential race.
It will be interesting if the Repubs have 2 Spanish speaking candidates (Jeb, Marco, Ted) on their ticket and whether or not that can pull enough Hispanic votes. rand Paul also has proven effective in getting more independent voters so while the Dems start the election favored, they'll have to match the team the Repubs are putting together which from my point of view, looks stronger than the Dem team at this point...at least from the standpoint of strength and likability of the candidate field.
It's interesting that at the same time Republians are fighting image problems and demagraphic problems, they have the most elected Repubs in office in 85 years and are 1 good Prez candidate for taking complete control of the government.
I agree the Dems have a blue wall giving them an advantage to start the Presidential Race and also that the demagraphic trends favor the Dems as well. However, these parties have proven adaptable over time, for example, the Dems went froma racist party favoring whites to a racist party favoring minorities when that got them more votes. Republicans know thaey have to crack the resistance Asians and Hispanics have or they will be shut out of the Presidential race.
It will be interesting if the Repubs have 2 Spanish speaking candidates (Jeb, Marco, Ted) on their ticket and whether or not that can pull enough Hispanic votes. rand Paul also has proven effective in getting more independent voters so while the Dems start the election favored, they'll have to match the team the Repubs are putting together which from my point of view, looks stronger than the Dem team at this point...at least from the standpoint of strength and likability of the candidate field.
It's interesting that at the same time Republians are fighting image problems and demagraphic problems, they have the most elected Repubs in office in 85 years and are 1 good Prez candidate for taking complete control of the government.
The fact that the GOP is "1 good Prez candidate from taking complete control of the government" is the biggest motivator for the Democratic base to show up in force in 2016, whether they're "Ready for Hillary" or not.
The fact that the GOP is "1 good Prez candidate from taking complete control of the government" is the biggest motivator for the Democratic base to show up in force in 2016, whether they're "Ready for Hillary" or not.
Yeah but is that enough if the Republicans have a ticket with Rubio drawing potentially a huge Hispanic vote. I think the Repubs have to draw Hispanic votes to win states like Florida, Colorado, New Mexcico, Nevada possibly...then pull back Ohio, NC, & Virginia. A tall order indeed but a really good candiate combined with a not so great Dem candidate and there you go. The Repubs had a weak candidate in McCain, maybe the Dems will serve us up a weak candidate (Hillary maybe).
Democrats' biggest liability is the sense of "inevitability" they have created out of thin air for Hillary Clinton. This sense of inevitability is driven not by facts, numbers, statistics, or any empirical evidence. Instead, it is driven by the raw acknowledgement that they literally have no one who can win the Presidency if Hillary Clinton wasn't in the race. Democrats are very desperate and grasping at anything to prop them up going into 2016, and everyone knows it. Including Nate Silver.
Is "Bush's Fault" overplayed? That's the real question.
Maybe in your mind, and those who believe as you do it is, but the very same thing can be said about the continual opposition to everything president Obama has done, including who he is as a human being.
The calamitous effects of the Bush presidency, especially the only pre-emptive war American ever entered into as a nation, caused many lifelong damages to millions of Americans. Every time any of us see a young man or woman who's missing a limb we are reminded of the Bush Wars and the developments that arose from them.
Even when Bush dies, that's his legacy. It won't be forgotten until the generation that paid the price of his mistakes also passes away. And even then, those folk's children and grandchildren are not going to forget. Like the ripples a stone makes when thrown into still waters, "Bush's Fault" will remain, spreading out in ever widening circles for decades to come.
A first time voter in 2000 is gong to be voting too, and that voter may have voted for Bush back then. Around the time that voter decided to enlist as a good career move. Is he likely to have forgotten? I don't think so, even if he will vote Republican in 2016.
Personally, I think that it's a given that we will elect a female President at some time. I'm not at all sure that Hillary will run only with that inevitability as being her only qualification. She is smarter than that. If being a woman is the only qualification needed to win the Presidency in 2016, the field of hopefuls would already be full of female hopefuls right now. Hillary Clinton is not the only female politician with big ambitions.
You can take it to the bank that Hillary Clinton is not taking the Blue Wall for granted. You can also be sure that she won't repeat any of her mistakes from 2008 either.
You are probably right that 55% of the older white male voters won't vote for her, and you're probably right that she will get more female votes than Obama got. But Hillary won't need 60% of any voting bloc to win; all she will need is 47.5% of a couple of the blocs to do it. Anything higher than that is cupcakes for Hillary.
For Hillary to get more female votes than Obama, two things have to happen: 1) Republican and right leaning Independents will have to spring for Hillary simply because she's a woman, and 2) female turnout will have to be higher. Your mistake is that you are assuming that every black female that voted in 2008 and 2012 will turn out to vote in 2016. I think you folks are making a colossal mistake if you think that black people will show up in 2016 like they did the past two elections. And if they don't? Then Hillary needs that many more people to show up to make up the difference.
Elections are about turnout, not race or gender. Barack Obama was an anomaly. For you folks to rely on his election statistics is a fatal flaw. Bet on it.
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.
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.
