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.
the GOP certainly stands s decent chance of winning the presidency in 2016. the two democrat front runners, clinton and warren, are basically female versions of obama, but with less charismatic appeal. if the republicans can avoid the pitfalls that will be placed in front of them by the liberal media, then i think the chances are good that the next president will be a republican.
so why not 2016? The media said congress was despised more than the President, lowest poll numbers, and yet we won! So if they didn't like what we were doing then why not now? The media was in shock over david cameron! the mighty had not gotten their way. Reality must be dealt with!
nobody cares about midterm elections. voter turnout isnt even 40 percent in most states.
presidential elections tell you how strong a party you have.
since the gop caters to white men only, you can understand why theyve lost 5 of the past 6 elections.
back in the 80's you could get away with just the white male vote.
According to the US Constitution, the US government consists of the legislative branch - or Congress, the House which requires a 50% majority to govern, and the Senate, which often requires a 60% majority to govern -, executive branch, and judicial branch in a system of checks and balances.
A large part of the US government is renewed every two years by the vote of the people. Congress passes laws on, among other things, government revenues and spending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtc08
presidential elections tell you how strong a party you have.
The US Constitution makes no mention of political parties.
The US government also consists of 50 governors, State Houses and Senates and judicial systems under the Constitutional umbrella, as well as counties and municipalities - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The US government does not consist of political parties or even of institutions. The US government consists of human beings in a system of checks and balances.
As flawed as human beings are, after more than two-hundred years it still seems to be working relatively well.
Having said that, I see little difference between the Bush and Clinton families, in fact I view the former slightly to the "left" of the latter.
We'll see if the system this time is capable of generating new blood in terms of the executive branch; it certainly has proven capable of doing that at other branches of government over the past six years or so.
You obviously view the presidency as a popularity contest with bragging rights, a common view, and not as one part in a governing system based on checks and balances among human beings, which is the reality.
Anyway, to answer the OP's question, I agree with poster #12 who stated that a so-called republican candidate has a 40%-50% chance of winning the presidency ... for better or worse.
Hence obviously the 2016 Congressional elections will be just as important, as will the 2018 Congressional elections, as were the 2010 and 2014 Congressional elections. Very important.
Recall that the current administration's only significant legislative achievement occurred in its first two years as a direct result of the 2008 Congressional elections.
Good Luck!
I also find this quite interesting:
Quote:
Originally Posted by armourereric
As of now to me:
Win POTUS 20%
Keep Senate 60%
Gains in Senate 40%
Keep House 90%
Gain in House 60% Gains in US statehouses 70%
Especially the bold. If the poster could please explain how and why republicans may have a 70% chance of making gains in US State Houses, and why it is significant.
According to the US Constitution, the US government consists of the legislative branch - or Congress, the House which requires a 50% majority to govern, and the Senate, which often requires a 60% majority to govern -, executive branch, and judicial branch in a system of checks and balances.
A large part of the US government is renewed every two years by the vote of the people. Congress passes laws on, among other things, government revenues and spending.
The US Constitution makes no mention of political parties.
The US government also consists of 50 governors, State Houses and Senates and judicial systems under the Constitutional umbrella, as well as counties and municipalities - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The US government does not consist of political parties or even of institutions. The US government consists of human beings in a system of checks and balances.
As flawed as human beings are, after more than two-hundred years it still seems to be working relatively well.
Having said that, I see little difference between the Bush and Clinton families, in fact I view the former slightly to the "left" of the latter.
We'll see if the system this time is capable of generating new blood in terms of the executive branch; it certainly has proven capable of doing that at other branches of government over the past six years or so.
You obviously view the presidency as a popularity contest with bragging rights, a common view, and not as one part in a governing system based on checks and balances among human beings, which is the reality.
Anyway, to answer the OP's question, I agree with poster #12 who stated that a so-called republican candidate has a 40%-50% chance of winning the presidency ... for better or worse.
Hence obviously the 2016 Congressional elections will be just as important, as will the 2018 Congressional elections, as were the 2010 and 2014 Congressional elections. Very important.
Recall that the current administration's only significant legislative achievement occurred in its first two years as a direct result of the 2008 Congressional elections.
Good Luck!
I also find this quite interesting:
Especially the bold. If the poster could please explain how and why republicans may have a 70% chance of making gains in US State Houses, and why it is significant.
Thanks.
Because it helps their case (even though there is no real link.) So long as you have California, Pennsylvania, New York and a few other states blue no matter what, it makes it easier because they can win with far fewer states due to the electoral college. Batting the fact that since 1992, Democrats have only list one popular vote Presidentally.
People, don't kid yourselves. The right has a very slim chance of winning in 2016. Hillary Clinton or the possibility of Bernie Sanders, will be the most likely President.
The Republican nominees disgust me this time. The fact that so many psychotic people from the right are running (Cruz, Bush, Carson, Fiorina,) is just appalling.
People, don't kid yourselves. The right has a very slim chance of winning in 2016. Hillary Clinton or the possibility of Bernie Sanders, will be the most likely President.
The Republican nominees disgust me this time. The fact that so many psychotic people from the right are running (Cruz, Bush, Carson, Fiorina,) is just appalling.
The Democrats already won this one.
Wow! could you put away the drugs for just long enough to explain just what it is that makes Bush, Cruz Carson and Fiorina psychotic, disgusting and appalling. Then please elaborate on the virtues of Hillary and Bernie as you see it... I'll wait.
Why do you say they need to reach out to minorities? What makes you think they are not? And why do you say, reach out to women? I would love to hear your views on this.
Its obvious Nita, look at all the GOP candidates they are all just a bunch of old white men.
Compared to the dems who have young fresh minorities as candidates.
People, don't kid yourselves. The right has a very slim chance of winning in 2016. Hillary Clinton or the possibility of Bernie Sanders, will be the most likely President.
The Republican nominees disgust me this time. The fact that so many psychotic people from the right are running (Cruz, Bush, Carson, Fiorina,) is just appalling.
The Democrats already won this one.
The fact that you lump Bush in with Carson, Cruz, and Fiorna reveals your ignorance.
Its obvious Nita, look at all the GOP candidates they are all just a bunch of old white men.
Compared to the dems who have young fresh minorities as candidates.
Why do you and yours continue with this nonsense in your first sentence? Your racism is showing with racial remarks like that also. If this was meant in sarcasm then please use the correct icon for that. At least there is a hint of it in your second sentence.
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.
