2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Black Swan

eire4 wrote: »

Whether he runs in 2016 for president or not I have no idea.

RCP average of 7 polls show Hilliary Clinton ahead of Chris Christie by +9.4, compared to +9.9 for Clinton if she were to run against Jeb Bush. Of course the confidence intervals would make the differences between Jeb Bush and Chris Christie meaningless, as would the 2 years before the general election.

Amerika

If the GOP controls both chambers in the new Congress, I think they’ll focus the next one-and-a-half years trying to work with Democrats on improving the economy and jobs market. Moves that appeal to the public and affects the 2016 race for the White House. And if they do, It might be a double edged sword for Hillary Clinton. Because if they try to get things done which appeal to the public, and Obama vetoes most everything, it will bode negatively for Hillary. And if the GOP succeeds in getting things done to help the public, it will put them in a good light, and again bode negatively for Hillary.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

what exactly was he in your opinion was he right about?

I think he was right on foreign policy. He was right when he said Russia was a serious strategic threat to the US. He was right that ObamaCare would be hard to implement. He was right that Obama would struggle to work with Congress. He was right in taking a strong stance on illegal immigration and the negative effects on the US. He was right about Benghazi. He was right about the 47%... Unfortunately the 47% got nothing voting for Obama.

And I think his message was right for getting the economy going and improving jobs to help the average American, instead of just the rich.

What do you think he was wrong about?

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

I think he was right on foreign policy. He was right when he said Russia was a serious strategic threat to the US. He was right that ObamaCare would be hard to implement. He was right that Obama would struggle to work with Congress. He was right in taking a strong stance on illegal immigration and the negative effects on the US. He was right about Benghazi. He was right about the 47%... Unfortunately the 47% got nothing voting for Obama.

And I think his message was right for getting the economy going and improving jobs to help the average American, instead of just the rich.

What do you think he was wrong about?

I think he is wrong on healthcare. I believe that we need a single payer system. I think his job plan was bad and would at best have lead to only modest job growth if not actually made the situation worse. His tax cuts I believe would only have made ths situation worse. He was always very vague on how they were going to be paid for. He wanted large cuts in public spending and investment which I feel is wrong. That would realy have hit things like Medicade, education and health research. He wanted to boost the military budget to 4% of GDP. To my mind the military budget is already bloated. Those would be some areas I think that Romney was wrong on.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

If the GOP controls both chambers in the new Congress, I think they’ll focus the next one-and-a-half years trying to work with Democrats on improving the economy and jobs market.

The last time Republicans controlled both houses resulted from the November 2004 elections for the 109th Congress (Senate 51 Republicans; House 227 Republicans, 205 Democrats). Congress helped GW Bush put Cox in as chairman of the SEC, increased deregulation, and cut SEC staff to a point that the investment banks were essentially responsible for themselves; i.e., the foxes were responsible for the chicken coup. High risk investments occurred over the next 3-4 years which greatly contributed to massive investment bank failures (e.g., Bear Stearns, etc.) and helped make the Great Recession "Great" in 2008 as a result. One party control of both houses of Congress was generally not good for the US form of government, regardless if the Republicans or Democrats were in control; e.g., ObamaCare passed when the Democrats controlled both houses, etc.

eire4

Black Swan wrote: »

The last time Republicans controlled both houses resulted from the November 2004 elections for the 109th Congress (Senate 51 Republicans; House 227 Republicans, 205 Democrats). Congress helped GW Bush put Cox in as chairman of the SEC, increased deregulation, and cut SEC staff to a point that the investment banks were essentially responsible for themselves; i.e., the foxes were responsible for the chicken coup. High risk investments occurred over the next 3-4 years which greatly contributed to massive investment bank failures (e.g., Bear Stearns, etc.) and helped make the Great Recession "Great" in 2008 as a result. One party control of both houses of Congress was generally not good for the US form of government, regardless if the Republicans or Democrats were in control; e.g., ObamaCare passed when the Democrats controlled both houses, etc.

One of the interesting points from last nights results is that in 5 out of 5 states measures to raise the minimum wage passed. Now Republicans are very much against that. Indeed some believe there shuld be no minimum wage at all. What makes those measures passing interesting is that in all 5 states Republicans had a great night yet this measure which is very much a polar opposite to the Republican agenda passed.


To me that is just another example of the broken system and how it is hurting the United States ability to function in a manner that works for it's people other then a small few.

Amerika

Amerika wrote: »

If the GOP controls both chambers in the new Congress, I think they’ll focus the next one-and-a-half years trying to work with Democrats on improving the economy and jobs market. Moves that appeal to the public and affects the 2016 race for the White House. And if they do, It might be a double edged sword for Hillary Clinton. Because if they try to get things done which appeal to the public, and Obama vetoes most everything, it will bode negatively for Hillary. And if the GOP succeeds in getting things done to help the public, it will put them in a good light, and again bode negatively for Hillary.

So tax cuts then?

Rightwing

I can't see the Republicans win in 2016. The country is just too poor for that to happen.

Black Swan

Rightwing wrote: »

I can't see the Republicans win in 2016. The country is just too poor for that to happen.

What do you mean by "poor?"

Rightwing

Black Swan wrote: »

What do you mean by "poor?"

The Republican's base is being constantly eroded. Is there 155m people depending on the Govt there now? Those people will want the Dems in power.

Amerika

Deleted User wrote: »

So tax cuts then?

I think we’ll see them start with getting the XL oil pipeline approved, wiping out many of the proposed environmental regulations detrimental to businesses, streamlining government agencies and reducing the size of the federal government, enacting some energy-related legislation, tackle some tax issues, get a budget approved, and work on a much needed long term highway bill.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

wiping out many of the proposed environmental regulations detrimental to businesses

Teddy Roosevelt was the 26th president, and one time GOP leader, that was "bully" champion for environmental conservation. The Republican political platform has dramatically changed since his time.

Amerika wrote: »

streamlining government agencies and reducing the size of the federal government

Does that include reducing the investment bank auditors and staff of the SEC like GW Bush did through chairman Cox in 2004?

Amerika wrote: »

work on a much needed long term highway bill.

Absolutely agree with this position, and if such legislation passes both houses of Congress, Obama will sign it.

FreudianSlippers

I think the biggest problem republicans face in 2016 is themselves. A moderate republican candidate would IMO almost undoubtedly win. There are many people in the US at the moment that would like a fiscal conservative but socially liberal president - I just don't think the reps have the candidate or the base to put one forward.

Black Swan

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think the biggest problem republicans face in 2016 is themselves. A moderate republican candidate would IMO almost undoubtedly win. There are many people in the US at the moment that would like a fiscal conservative but socially liberal president - I just don't think the reps have the candidate or the base to put one forward.

Excellent observation.

eire4

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think the biggest problem republicans face in 2016 is themselves. A moderate republican candidate would IMO almost undoubtedly win. There are many people in the US at the moment that would like a fiscal conservative but socially liberal president - I just don't think the reps have the candidate or the base to put one forward.

To an extent you just described The Libertarian Party. But there is no way the Republicans or the Democrats will allow them to become a real player in American politcs. Both parties really have become corporate entities and they value way to much the monoply they have over the current system which is one of the main reason it is so broken.

Rightwing

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think the biggest problem republicans face in 2016 is themselves. A moderate republican candidate would IMO almost undoubtedly win. There are many people in the US at the moment that would like a fiscal conservative but socially liberal president - I just don't think the reps have the candidate or the base to put one forward.

Is that not a little unfair on Obama, remember he took the budget deficit down from 10.1% in '09 to 5.3% in 2013 and it's still falling.

In many respects his presidency was constrained by the ineptitude of 8 years of Republican folly.

eire4

Rightwing wrote: »

Is that not a little unfair on Obama, remember he took the budget deficit down from 10.1% in '09 to 5.3% in 2013 and it's still falling.

In many respects his presidency was constrained by the ineptitude of 8 years of Republican folly.

What I feel the election shows is the broken nature of the system and the monoply on power held by the 2 main parties. Look at the economic numbers. Stock market way up, unemployment under 6% great corporate profits. Yet these benefits are only felt for the most part by an elite at the top so the public angry at the party in power votes heavily against it. Yet the Republicans have no interest in an agenda that will benefit the vast majority of Americans either.
About $4 Billion was spent on this election the vast majority by wealthy individuals and big corporations. The idea that there is a real democracy functioing in the interests of the majority of Americans is a joke. What we had on Tuesday was in many ways an auction.

FreudianSlippers

eire4 wrote: »

To an extent you just described The Libertarian Party. But there is no way the Republicans or the Democrats will allow them to become a real player in American politcs. Both parties really have become corporate entities and they value way to much the monoply they have over the current system which is one of the main reason it is so broken.

I think the Tea Party has ruined the word Libertarian in the US. Tea Party candidates are running wild in the Rep party and traditional republicans aren't sure what to do... On one hand they like the popularity in a partisan, 2 party system; on the other they don't really want to vote for them.

FreudianSlippers

Rightwing wrote: »

Is that not a little unfair on Obama, remember he took the budget deficit down from 10.1% in '09 to 5.3% in 2013 and it's still falling.

In many respects his presidency was constrained by the ineptitude of 8 years of Republican folly.

A number of states are imposing massive tax hikes (some inexplicably retroactive) on high-middle earners.

PopePalpatine

I find it the term "libertarian" a misnomer when applied to the Tea Party. "Big government" is OK when Jeebus wills it.

Memnoch

I don't see how libertarians can be considered as any kind of viable alternative to democrats or republicans when it comes to being in thrall to corporate influence since their position is far more extreme in enabling corporate power and influence.

Recognition Scene

Amerika wrote: »

wiping out many of the proposed environmental regulations detrimental to businesses

Most worrying part of the election results imo... ending up with climate change deniers who will prioritize the quick buck over the environment.

jank

Memnoch wrote: »

I don't see how libertarians can be considered as any kind of viable alternative to democrats or republicans when it comes to being in thrall to corporate influence since their position is far more extreme in enabling corporate power and influence.

Corporate power and influence is enabled directly via government. Libertarians want to reduce the over reach of government thus indirectly stemming corporate power and influence. Statists want big government yet on the same hand they want lots of rules and regulations that will control corporations that are enabled by the very same big government...

Suryavarman

Memnoch wrote: »

I don't see how libertarians can be considered as any kind of viable alternative to democrats or republicans when it comes to being in thrall to corporate influence since their position is far more extreme in enabling corporate power and influence.

They are a viable alternative because they won't vote for corporation backed bills that enhance the power of those corporations.

Brian?

jank wrote: »

Corporate power and influence is enabled directly via government. Libertarians want to reduce the over reach of government thus indirectly stemming corporate power and influence. Statists want big government yet on the same hand they want lots of rules and regulations that will control corporations that are enabled by the very same big government...

If you reduce "Government power" who regulates corporate behaviour?

Government power should be the direct expression of the will of the people. The problem now is not too much government, it's the wrong type of government.

Rightwing

Brian? wrote: »

If you reduce "Government power" who regulates corporate behaviour?

Government power should be the direct expression of the will of the people. The problem now is not too much government, it's the wrong type of government.

It's both.

eire4

Recognition Scene wrote: »

Most worrying part of the election results imo... ending up with climate change deniers who will prioritize the quick buck over the environment.

These kind of politicans and the polices they push and support are the perfect example of what the auctioning off of the US government has lead to and how dangerous it is to all of us not just Americans.

Hold the Cheez Whiz

jank wrote: »

Corporate power and influence is enabled directly via government. Libertarians want to reduce the over reach of government thus indirectly stemming corporate power and influence. Statists want big government yet on the same hand they want lots of rules and regulations that will control corporations that are enabled by the very same big government...

I am not saying this to be a smart-ass or to bait you, but is there any empirical evidence whatsoever that a lack of government regulation in any way stems the influence of corporate power? Any at all? And how are you defining power here?

Brian?

Rightwing wrote: »

It's both.

Why so? You don't believe the will of the people should be the right way to govern a country?

Rightwing

Brian? wrote: »

Why so? You don't believe the will of the people should be the right way to govern a country?

But what's the will of the people, who can define that? Some here don't want water charges, many don't want quangos etc.