# 2016 U.S. Presidential Election



## Picklechu (Apr 9, 2015)

I didn't see a thread for this, so I decided to go ahead and create one. As candidates are starting to declare, I figured that this would be a topic that people would want to talk about.

The Democrats are likely to nominate Hillary Clinton, although she will possibly be challenged by one or more second- or third-tier candidates in the primaries, such as Martin O'Malley (the former Governor of Maryland), Jim Webb (former U.S. Senator from Virginia), Bernie Sanders (an independent U.S. Senator who caucuses with the Democrats and is a self-described socialist), and Joe Biden.

The Republican side is significantly more chaotic, and will probably dominate the media narrative until at least January, as there are currently around twenty candidates actively considering bids.

As for third party and independent candidates, it's looking like the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, to a lesser extent, will nominate the same candidates as they did in 2012, at least at the top of the ticket. They're unlikely to affect the outcome regardless, unless one of the lawsuits against the Commission on Presidential Debates proves fruitful.

Personally, at the moment, I'm undecided whether I'm going to get behind Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, although that could easily change.


----------



## Picklechu (Apr 9, 2015)

Lincoln Chafee, who served as a Republican U.S. Senator from 1999-2007, then as Governor of Rhode Island from 2011-2015 (as an independent until 2013, when he switched to the Democratic Party) has formed an exploratory committee to seek the Democratic nomination. People are generally pretty surprised at this, although he can definitely draw a strong contrast with Clinton.


----------



## Mourning Dove (Apr 9, 2015)

I'm personally not very optimistic about future presidents. Eight years ago when I was voting for the first time I was young and naive and thought "Hope" and "Change" could actually happen. But nowadays politics (especially dumb shit from Teapartiers and other lobbied right-wingers) give me headaches and face palms. What's the point of being a voting citizen if the candidate sponsored by the richest asshole always wins?

I have left-leaning political stances if you couldn't notice!


----------



## Trickie (Apr 9, 2015)

I think I already know which way I'm going to be voting.

★ ☆ ★* Vote Turd Sandwich 2016 *★ ☆ ★


----------



## CatParty (Apr 9, 2015)

i'll tell my work i need to either come in late or leave early to vote, but i'll just be drinking or sleeping


----------



## Francis York Morgan (Apr 9, 2015)

Picklechu said:


> Personally, at the moment, I'm undecided whether I'm going to get behind Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, although that could easily change.



If the GOP is going to keep getting candidates like Cruz or Rand Paul, then Jeb's got the nomination.


----------



## Oglooger (Apr 9, 2015)

I'm not looking forward to voting as my vote don't really matter, it's all about the electoral college.


----------



## JU 199 (Apr 9, 2015)

_(power level)_ I'm half american. I'm rather fascinated in the country culturally and politically.

@Picklechu What do you think of _Ted Cruz as_ a candidate and a person/politician?


----------



## exball (Apr 9, 2015)

Normally I'm democratic but the idea of Hilary Clinton as president terrifies me.


----------



## NegaCWC (Apr 9, 2015)

Picklechu said:


> The Democrats are likely to nominate Hillary Clinton, although she will possibly be challenged by one or more second- or third-tier candidates in the primaries, such as Martin O'Malley (the former Governor of Maryland), Jim Webb (former U.S. Senator from Virginia), Bernie Sanders (an independent U.S. Senator who caucuses with the Democrats and is a self-described socialist), and Joe Biden.





Picklechu said:


> Lincoln Chafee, who served as a Republican U.S. Senator from 1999-2007, then as Governor of Rhode Island from 2011-2015 (as an independent until 2013, when he switched to the Democratic Party) has formed an exploratory committee to seek the Democratic nomination. People are generally pretty surprised at this, although he can definitely draw a strong contrast with Clinton.



Here's my barely informed opinion on this matter: out of all the Democrats who might be running against Hilary, Webb is the only one that I can see actaully amounting to anything in this election. I don't think he can beat Hilary in the primaries, but maybe by starting a campaign he might gain more recoginition and then try to get Hilary to pick him up as VP. Hilary might benefit from having Webb on the ticket because he can help the Dems win Virginia, a state with thirteen electoral votes that has become competitive in recent years.


----------



## Red_Rager (Apr 9, 2015)

Decisions, decisions. Would I rather be shot or hung? That is the question.

In seriousness though I haven't been paying attention to this election.  I am not optimistic about whoever lands on the ballet for either party.


----------



## dabluearmedbandit (Apr 9, 2015)

fudck all govmint analchest 4 lyfe fegs

EDIT: Honestly though, I'm probably going to vote Republican just to vote against Hillary. What's that joke about never voting for anyone, just always against someone? That's how the last few elections have been for me.


----------



## KatsuKitty (Apr 9, 2015)

2016 really won't be a year that knocks anyone's socks off for the choices.

I'm not _thrilled_ about Hillary (especially because of her hawkishness on war) but I think considering how right the Supreme Court is, I think I would like to see another Democrat in office. Other than that though, she's terrible.

If the GOP can put someone up truly stunning (and I'm less than thrilled with everyone put forth except maybe Rand Paul), I could see myself voting Republican. Rand Paul is someone I can definitely get behind. He doesn't toe the GOP line, which lets him be the better of two parties.


----------



## Cubanodun (Apr 9, 2015)

Any candidate who manage to piss off the government of my country is A-OK in my book


----------



## nad7155 (Apr 9, 2015)

They are all the same.

Don't care.


----------



## Hat (Apr 9, 2015)

I've personally got my eye on Cruz.


----------



## Picklechu (Apr 9, 2015)

Ass Manager 3000 said:


> _(power level)_ I'm half american. I'm rather fascinated in the country culturally and politically.
> 
> @Picklechu What do you think of _Ted Cruz as_ a candidate and a person/politician?


I hate him with a furious passion, and will seriously consider voting for Gary Johnson if he somehow wins the Republican nomination. Fortunately, I think that the best he can do is to become the primary foil to the establishment candidate in the primaries.


----------



## NegaCWC (Apr 9, 2015)

Picklechu said:


> I hate him with a furious passion, and will seriously consider voting for Gary Johnson if he somehow wins the Republican nomination. Fortunately, I think that the best he can do is to become the primary foil to the establishment candidate in the primaries.



If anything, I think he'll mainly be a foil for other anti-establishment candidates. Rand Paul is officially running while Ben Carson, Rick Parry (lol srsly) and Rick Santorum are all formally exploring a candidacy. My understanding is that all of the aforementioned people and Ted Cruz are vying for the same votes. I suspect that they'll merely divide the Tea Party/Religious right wing of the GOP while the moderates will all coalesce around the establishment candidate.


----------



## Picklechu (Apr 9, 2015)

NegaCWC said:


> If anything, I think he'll mainly be a foil for other anti-establishment candidates. Rand Paul is officially running while Ben Carson, Rick Parry (lol srsly) and Rick Santorum are all formally exploring a candidacy. My understanding is that all of the aforementioned people and Ted Cruz are vying for the same votes. I suspect that they'll merely divide the Tea Party/Religious right wing of the GOP while the moderates will all coalesce around the establishment candidate.


There are a lot of unknowns, but several candidates are going to be competing for the anti-establishment vote, and they'll be competing at different levels of viability. At the top are Ted Cruz and Rand Paul (and, depending on how things go and if Cruz, Paul, and others get pushed out early, Marco Rubio and Scott Walker; the primaries will likely come down to an establishment and anti-establishment pick, and lots of different candidates can fill those roles). In the middle tier, you have Ben Carson, and Mike Huckabee (and possibly Rick Perry). At the bottom, you have John Bolton, Jim Gilmore, Rick Santorum, and Donald Trump; personally, I don't think that any of them aside from Santorum will actually run, although Gilmore might jump in.

This phenomenon carries over to the establishment side of things, too. At the top on that side of the primaries is Jeb Bush (and possibly Rubio and Walker). In the middle tier is Chris Christie and John Kasich (assuming he runs). At the bottom are Lindsey Graham, Peter King, and George Pataki.

In addition, as can sort of be implied form the above, some candidates are trying to "triangulate" in the field, including Rubio, Walker, Carly Fiorina, and Rick Perry.

The whole thing is really more of a plane than a spectrum.


----------



## JU 199 (Apr 9, 2015)

Picklechu said:


> I hate him with a furious passion, and will seriously consider voting for Gary Johnson if he somehow wins the Republican nomination. Fortunately, I think that the best he can do is to become the primary foil to the establishment candidate in the primaries.



Thanks man. I think you mentioned you were a Republican operative in another thread. _Who would you vote for in your own party?_


----------



## Picklechu (Apr 9, 2015)

Ass Manager 3000 said:


> Thanks man. I think you mentioned you were a Republican operative in another thread. _Who would you vote for in your own party?_


Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are at the top for me; I'm completely undecided at this point. I think that John Kasich is almost as good, but I doubt he runs. I'd be neutral on Chris Christie, Lindsey Graham, and Rand Paul. I'd have to hold my nose to vote for Bob Ehrlich, Carly Fiorina, Peter King, George Pataki, Mike Pence, and Rick Perry. In a primary, I would not, under any circumstances, vote for John Bolton, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Mark Everson, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, or Donald Trump, and, in some cases, would consider voting for a third party candidate in the unlikely scenario that they won the nomination.


----------



## RP 520 (Apr 9, 2015)

My Opinion on the candidates/potentials so far:


-Ben Carson: Already out, the whole "gays are a choice, people that go to prison and come out gay is proof" thing ruined him quick. It goes to show just because you're well educated in one area doesn't mean you are in another.
-Ted Cruz: IMO he might have something, despite what people think of him he hasn't had any true issues come up yet, and the whole Government shutdown thing could actually be used to his advantage if he spins it right. Plus his credentials pre-politics are pretty good. He'll likely cause a LOT of infighting though amongst establishment and anti-establishment.
-Jeb Bush: Big money and establishment guy, he'll probably lose simply because his last name is "Bush" if he's picked for the GOP. Also political family dynasties should be outlawed.
-Rand Paul: Alright guy, I await for new "It's Happening" memes with his face shooped on them instead of his father's. He has a sound policy and I think it's a bit lulzy that the attacks on him currently are accusing him of sexism and having an uncontrollable temper simply because he doesn't take shit from crappy interviewers.
-Mike Huckabee: Claims to be an outsider but is an Establishment guy who will only get the religious vote.
-Chris Christie: Not happening.
-Lindsey Graham: The Republican base hates him because he always sides with Democrats on most things.
-Scott Walker: Might be an option to the Republicans because he is known as a fighter amongst the Repubs for not caving in on the union thing and winning a recall campaign against him because of it and then winning the election after that.


-Hillary Clinton: Already lost, she has too many enemies, controversy is all around her, Obama is obviously against her, she has the Benghazi thing, she's extremely secretive and has a recorded history of having a horrible temper behind the scenes to everyone around her and is known to go on explosive tirades and threatening/humiliating media outlets and their journalists if they're even slightly negative about her. She's in it solely to stroke her ego. She's not Bill Clinton. Also the whole political dynasty thing again.
-Elizabeth Warren: Supposedly Obama 2.0 ideology-wise, this is reportedly the person Obama wants to replace him. She's kind of an unknown and quiet right now (which people think means she's going to possibly run) but in the past she's been open on her views and not shy about saying what she believes in which might make her pretty unpopular with anyone that isn't a hard liberal. If she covers things up, plays the moderate, and sucks up to millennials until she gets into office then she has a chance.
-Mark Warner: Seeing as I lived in VA when he was Governor, he's an alright guy policy-wise and is pretty moderate when governing from what I remember. I would vote for him if he was a presidential nominee and the Republican was a Jeb Bush ot something.
If it comes down to a Hillary vs. Jeb Bush, then I'm going to write someone in and then plan on leaving the U.S.


----------



## Trombonista (Apr 9, 2015)

@CatParty for President


----------



## Stalin (Apr 9, 2015)

Scott Walker won't get the nomination because it would mean the GOP loses Wisconsin. He's had some pretty unpopular decisions as of late. Jeb won't get it because he's another Bush. My money is on Cruz getting the nomination but proving to be too extreme for the moderates the GOP needs. 

I would prefer Warren get the Democratic nomination but she's also a bit too extreme for the moderate. It'll be Clinton, though I'm not optimistic about her chances of winning. Compared to Cruz, I think she'll stand a better chance, though.


----------



## Picklechu (Apr 10, 2015)

EleSigma said:


> -Jim Webb: Seeing as I lived in VA when he was Governor, he's an alright guy policy-wise and is pretty moderate when governing from what I remember. I would vote for him if he was a presidential nominee and the Republican was a Jeb Bush ot something.


Jim Webb was never a Governor. He was a U.S. Senator from 2007 to 2013, and served as Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy in the '80s.


----------



## RP 520 (Apr 10, 2015)

Picklechu said:


> Jim Webb was never a Governor. He was a U.S. Senator from 2007 to 2013, and served as Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy in the '80s.



Shit, I was thinking of Mark Warner.  Whoops. Anyways Mark Warner is considered a potential candidate as well and who I was talking about.


----------



## Quijibo69 (Apr 10, 2015)

I have a strange feeling Hillary Clinton is going to win. I'm calling it now.


----------



## exball (Apr 10, 2015)

Quijibo69 said:


> I have a strange feeling Hillary Clinton is going to win. I'm calling it now.





 

Plz no.


----------



## Hodor (Apr 10, 2015)

Quijibo69 said:


> I have a strange feeling Hillary Clinton is going to win. I'm calling it now.


I want a female president, but next to _anyone_ but her would be better.


----------



## Ariel (Apr 10, 2015)

As a fairly moderate conservative, i'm glad I don't have to choose between the democrats and the GOP 

That said i'm going to predict that Jeb Bush takes office.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Apr 10, 2015)

EleSigma said:


> Hillary Clinton: Already lost, she has too many enemies, controversy is all around her, Obama is obviously against her, she has the Benghazi thing



The only people for whom Benghazi resonates are people who would never vote Democrat in a million years.  Seriously, Benghazi was supposed to blow the election wide in 2012 and it obviously didn't.  Nobody cares.

I really look forward to Republicans claiming Benghazi is going to be the defining issue of the 2020 election

Edit: May as well throw in some positive predictions.  Clinton has the Democratic nomination locked up, she may get a few shots across the bow during the primaries but it would take another Obama-level campaigner to stop her at this point, and there obviously isn't anybody out there who could play that role.  I know Obama came from behind in 2008, but he still had a lot going for him before the primaries.  There's nobody right now who's in an equivalent position to where Obama was at this stage of the race in 2007.

For the Republicans it's predictably harder to pick.  If I was a Republican strategist I would be praying for Mark Rubio, because he's not obviously insane, he has some appeal with the Tea Party but isn't so closely identified with thim that he'd alienate people who dislike the Tea Party, he's a Hispanic and he's from Florida.  Republican efforts to capture the Hispanic vote are usually hilariously cack-handed and show a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of Hispanic identity, but if Rubio can even shear off an extra 5% of the vote, that would make a huge difference in an election.  Plus, Florida.  For some reason Rubio doesn't seem to be considered a front runner, but he really should be.  (Back in 2012 I said that the most positive thing Romney could do would be to pick Rubio as his running mate to give the Republicans a better chance in 2016)

As for who's likely, while Jeb Bush looks good on paper I just can't see him winning it.  Bush belongs to a political era that's already passed us by.  If he did get the nomination he would get it for the same reasons Romney did - nobody is really super enthusiastic about a Jeb Bush candidacy (except, I presume, for his personal friends), but he's not overtly offensive to any demographic.  But "everybody's second choice" isn't a great piece of political branding.

Rand Paul has to be taken seriously too.  He has the potential to energise his father's supporters but is much better at reaching out to the rest of the party.  I could definitely see him as the candidate.  There are a lot of question marks over where he stands on key policy issues like foreign policy, but that kind of vagueness can be a strength (it shouldn't be, but it is)

As for the rest... meh.  Huckabee was a strong contender in 2008 but he's allowed his political capital to evaporate.  Santorum only looked good in 2012 because he was people's second choice after Herman Cain.  (Let that sink in for a second)  Chris Christie seems to have blotted his copybook with various petty scandals, although if it were this time last year I'd rate him much higher.  And Ben Carson is just... honestly if you can't see why Ben Carson will never be President I don't have anything to say to you.

I think the Republicans are gonna win, regardless of who their nominee is.


----------



## klystron (Apr 10, 2015)

One of the most mature, unbiased, and thoughtful political posts I've ever seen on this site. I agree with almost everything you said here.



EleSigma said:


> My Opinion on the candidates/potentials so far:
> 
> -Ben Carson: Already out, the whole "gays are a choice, people that go to prison and come out gay is proof" thing ruined him quick. It goes to show just because you're well educated in one area doesn't mean you are in another.




I think many older people who are apolitical will not care about this. I find that outside in the world when people don't pay attention to news or politics that many people have never even heard or considered the thought that gay marriage is a real thing in many places. Carson is an extremely intelligent person, but not intelligent enough to just say nothing on this. I question how well he can do politically since knowing when to not say anything is important.



> -Ted Cruz: IMO he might have something, despite what people think of him he hasn't had any true issues come up yet, and the whole Government shutdown thing could actually be used to his advantage if he spins it right. Plus his credentials pre-politics are pretty good. He'll likely cause a LOT of infighting though amongst establishment and anti-establishment.



Cruz is an interesting candidate. I really like the guy. As a conservative non-Republican I would agree with you on the infighting thing. My observations of the Republican party is there is a principled part and a political part, and the establishment tends to be more political and want to give here and there to grow the base. (Not a bad thing politically, but it alienates others.) I actually love watching them fight (even if it damages chances for conservative candidates) so at least it won't be boring.



> -Jeb Bush: Big money and establishment guy, he'll probably lose simply because his last name is "Bush" if he's picked for the GOP. Also political family dynasties should be outlawed.



Yep.



> -Rand Paul: Alright guy, I await for new "It's Happening" memes with his face shooped on them instead of his father's. He has a sound policy and I think it's a bit lulzy that the attacks on him currently are accusing him of sexism and having an uncontrollable temper simply because he doesn't take shit from crappy interviewers.



The issue I have with the Pauls is their extreme isolationism. I used to think this way pre-9/11. Now I think we should have learned lessons from Pearl Harbor. It'll be really interesting to see if he can resonate with the young folks the way his dad did. I used to see the Paul crowds and think "they like him because it's the cool thing to do" but whenever I talk to Paul supporters they are extremely well informed.



> -Mike Huckabee: Claims to be an outsider but is an Establishment guy who will only get the religious vote.



As a huge Huckabee fan, religious American (but not religious voter) I would agree. I have family in the extreme Bible Belt and they all voted for Huckabee as did their entire areas. I know many people who vote solely on whether a candidate is pro-life or pro-abortion. Single issue voters piss me off. Anyway, he spent a ton of money as governor of Arkansas and I don't know if his conservative credentials will resonate with primary voters. That said, he was extremely magnanimous in 2008 when he bowed out of the race to increase Romney's chances over McCain. People won't forget that. Plus he can play the guitar.



> -Chris Christie: Not happening.
> -Lindsey Graham: The Republican base hates him because he always sides with Democrats on most things.



Yep.



> -Scott Walker: Might be an option to the Republicans because he is known as a fighter amongst the Repubs for not caving in on the union thing and winning a recall campaign against him because of it and then winning the election after that.



Personally I like Walker the best right now. I'd like to see Cain run again. I wish he would have stayed in it. Many of his accusers were discredited and I think he could resonate with people again. But, I imagine that's a dream that will never happen. Walker survived vicious attacks and has proven he knows how to handle himself during situations like that. In addition, he's proven that he will tackle politically unpopular issues to try and improve the situation in his state. We need to do something about our entitlement spending. Outright welfare and non-discretionary spending are dwarfed by it. Some unpopular decisions need to be made and fast. We can't kick the can down the road forever.

You also forgot Carly Fiorina. I like her but I don't think she'll resonate with the national party.



> -Hillary Clinton: Already lost, she has too many enemies, controversy is all around her, Obama is obviously against her, she has the Benghazi thing, she's extremely secretive and has a recorded history of having a horrible temper behind the scenes to everyone around her and is known to go on explosive tirades and threatening/humiliating media outlets and their journalists if they're even slightly negative about her. She's in it solely to stroke her ego. She's not Bill Clinton. Also the whole political dynasty thing again.



Yep. There are also issues about whether or not the Clintons broke the law receiving all this money in their foundation from foreign governments and nationals while she was Secretary of State. It won't turn into any legal troubles for them but it will certainly drag down her campaign.



> -Elizabeth Warren: Supposedly Obama 2.0 ideology-wise, this is reportedly the person Obama wants to replace him. She's kind of an unknown and quiet right now (which people think means she's going to possibly run) but in the past she's been open on her views and not shy about saying what she believes in which might make her pretty unpopular with anyone that isn't a hard liberal. If she covers things up, plays the moderate, and sucks up to millennials until she gets into office then she has a chance.



I don't know much about her to be honest. I don't think a hard liberal will win. I don't really think any liberal will win. We are very much a pendulum and it always swings the opposite way. Obama isn't any more popular than Bush was (and Bush wasn't as conservative as the media made him out to be) and I think as a result we'll see someone more center or right-of-center but that's just my opinion.



> Mark Warner: Seeing as I lived in VA when he was Governor, he's an alright guy policy-wise and is pretty moderate when governing from what I remember. I would vote for him if he was a presidential nominee and the Republican was a Jeb Bush ot something.



Under Warner they raised sales taxes. First thing McDonnel did was raise speed limits. I liked McDonnel. Too bad about the whole bribery thing. Warner is not a bad guy.


> If it comes down to a Hillary vs. Jeb Bush, then I'm going to write someone in and then plan on leaving the U.S.



QFT.

Anyway, awesome post. If I could rate like a million more times I would.


----------



## Picklechu (Apr 10, 2015)

klystron said:


> You also forgot Carly Fiorina. I like her but I don't think she'll resonate with the national party.


See, that's part of Carly Fiorina's rationale for running. She knows that (A) people generally like her on at least some level, (B) that she provides a perspective, as the former CEO of HP, that is severely underrepresented in the field (on both sides), and that (C) the Republican Party will need a woman on the primary debate stage and to make attacks on Clinton that the far left would claim to be "sexist" or "mansplaining" or something like that if they came from a man. Really, Carly Fiorina isn't so much running for President as she's running for VP or a Cabinet position. Personally, as of now, I don't think that I would want her on the ticket, although I absolutely want her to run and at least make it to January for reason C that I mentioned.


----------



## klystron (Apr 10, 2015)

Picklechu said:


> See, that's part of Carly Fiorina's rationale for running. She knows that (A) people generally like her on at least some level, (B) that she provides a perspective, as the former CEO of HP, that is severely underrepresented in the field (on both sides), and that (C) the Republican Party will need a woman on the primary debate stage and to make attacks on Clinton that the far left would claim to be "sexist" or "mansplaining" or something like that if they came from a man. Really, Carly Fiorina isn't so much running for President as she's running for VP or a Cabinet position. Personally, as of now, I don't think that I would want her on the ticket, although I absolutely want her to run and at least make it to January for reason C that I mentioned.



I agree with you on C but the fact she was fired from HP in 2005 will make her business sense a tough sell. Regardless of what turnaround she may have caused at HP. I knew many people at that time when she was CEO and they didn't like her, but they were all old and sexist. (and mostly democrats) So what can you do?

Polls showed nobody bought the "war on women" nonsense. Really I would think people are tired of constantly hearing how everyone in the Republican party hates every group except white males but maybe not.

Longshots for 2016 but people to watch are Tom McClintock from California, Mia Love from Utah, and Mike Lee from Utah. I'm a big Mia Love fan. I wonder what @The Dude thinks.

EDIT: When I say "people to watch" I don't mean in 2016 I mean in the future.


----------



## The Dude (Apr 11, 2015)

klystron said:


> I agree with you on C but the fact she was fired from HP in 2005 will make her business sense a tough sell. Regardless of what turnaround she may have caused at HP. I knew many people at that time when she was CEO and they didn't like her, but they were all old and sexist. (and mostly democrats) So what can you do?
> 
> Polls showed nobody bought the "war on women" nonsense. Really I would think people are tired of constantly hearing how everyone in the Republican party hates every group except white males but maybe not.
> 
> ...



I love Mia Love. I think she's awesome and I've been a supporter of her's for a long time. I think people like her can really do some good for this country and I think she has a wonderful, successful future ahead of her.


----------



## Holdek (Apr 11, 2015)

NegaCWC said:


> If anything, I think he'll mainly be a foil for other anti-establishment candidates. Rand Paul is officially running while Ben Carson, Rick Parry (lol srsly) and Rick Santorum are all formally exploring a candidacy. My understanding is that all of the aforementioned people and Ted Cruz are vying for the same votes. I suspect that they'll merely divide the Tea Party/Religious right wing of the GOP while the moderates will all coalesce around the establishment candidate.



That's certainly what the GOP wants.  The big money people want either Christie or Bush to not run so that there isn't a protracted slugfest between the big guys.  The last thing they want are legit candidates fighting out a bloody primary while Hillary cruises to the convention.

Really there's no way to game this out on the GOP side at this point because there's so many candidates running, and unlike last time several of them are legit, and that splits constituencies, money, etc.


Picklechu said:


> See, that's part of Carly Fiorina's rationale for running...(C) the Republican Party will need a woman on the primary debate stage and to make attacks on Clinton that the far left would claim to be "sexist" or "mansplaining" or something like that if they came from a man. Really, Carly Fiorina isn't so much running for President as she's running for VP or a Cabinet position. Personally, as of now, I don't think that I would want her on the ticket, although I absolutely want her to run and at least make it to January for reason C that I mentioned.



It won't work.  It'll be like expecting Herman Cain to inoculate the party from charges that they are racist.


----------



## DuskEngine (Apr 11, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> Rand Paul has to be taken seriously too. He has the potential to energise his father's supporters but is much better at reaching out to the rest of the party. I could definitely see him as the candidate. There are a lot of question marks over where he stands on key policy issues like foreign policy, but that kind of vagueness can be a strength (it shouldn't be, but it is)



I do wish that Paul had stuck to his ideological guns a little more instead of reaching out to the Republican base. Even if it would have burned his chances of success, I feel like a candidate who campaigned on a serious anti-war stance (especially a conservative one) would open the way for that to become a bigger platform in the future.


----------



## Tookie (Apr 11, 2015)

Jeb Bush looks strong on paper, but he is going to follow the exact same trajectory that Rudy Giuliani took during his campaign in 2008. Despite polling well and having a lot of money, Bush will falter in the early states and end up running out of steam by the time Super Tuesday rolls around. He won't even compete in Iowa, will get upset by one or two candidates in New Hampshire, and then under-perform in Florida because he'll have to be competing against Rubio. Bush is going to just kind of fizzle out. 

Walker, Paul, and Rubio are going to be the biggest contenders. My money is on Walker winning. Paul will have a sizable and dedicated base of support to stay competitive. Rubio will siphon away some of Bush's support and already has a lot of Romney people lurking around him. Christie is going nowhere, Cruz is an asshole, and the religious/so-con candidates will ultimately be as pointless as they were in the last two primaries.


----------



## Picklechu (Apr 11, 2015)

Holdek said:


> That's certainly what the GOP wants.  The big money people want either Christie or Bush to not run so that there isn't a protracted slugfest between the big guys.


Not really. Jeb Bush has an enormous money network; literally no one on the GOP side will outraise him unless he implodes. There are still some big money people, especially in New Jersey and NYC, who want Christie to run, but they're starting to get antsy. Christie legitimately doesn't give a fuck at this point, from my understanding, and will declare in May or June. There's not some monolithic, "big money" group behind the scenes. (It's looking like Rubio will be picking up a lot of cash, too, if he can meet expectation, especially from former Romney bundlers.) Regardless, I don't think there's enough oxygen to sustain both Bush and Christie, and the field ought to be narrowed to one establishment candidate against a more conservative candidate by the end of February or beginning of March. At the moment, my money would be on Bush vs. Walker, but that could easily change.




Holdek said:


> It won't work.  It'll be like expecting Herman Cain to inoculate the party from charges that they are racist.


Carly Fiorina is far less of a clown than Herman Cain. No one, crazy tea party people aside, wanted Cain to run. She knows what she's doing.


----------



## XYZpdq (Apr 11, 2015)

If anybody could piss away an election against Hillary "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE" Clinton, it's the modern republican party.


----------



## chimpburgers (Apr 11, 2015)

I've lost faith in the process and I'm not excited about anyone running for this thing. I especially dislike Rand Paul and he just comes across as another establishment guy trying to appeal to those kinds of anti-establishment platitudes to get elected. Clinton's also been a huge disappointment to me.

Tl;dr: They're all full of shit and bought off IMO.


----------



## klystron (Apr 11, 2015)

DawnMachine said:


> I do wish that Paul had stuck to his ideological guns a little more instead of reaching out to the Republican base. Even if it would have burned his chances of success, I feel like a candidate who campaigned on a serious anti-war stance (especially a conservative one) would open the way for that to become a bigger platform in the future.



You are exactly right. Sticking to your principles is important. Even if you lose you will influence the discussion. In the long run that's important.



The Dude said:


> I love Mia Love. I think she's awesome and I've been a supporter of her's for a long time. I think people like her can really do some good for this country and I think she has a wonderful, successful future ahead of her.



I knew you were smart enough to know what's up.


----------



## Lefty's Revenge (Apr 11, 2015)

My fairly uninformed opinion:

Whatever happens I don't think the republican party wins in 2016. The party is being branded (and at times branding themselves) as the party of idiots in alot of people's minds and thats not good for anyone. This is coming from a moderate with decidedly left leanings. We need both parties on their A game. Neither is. But the Republicans are in particularly bad shape right about now. 

I'm convinced Cruz isn't trying to win. Just wants to make some money off of his party. 

The email thing has damaged her but I think Hilary wins this. The best republican candidates like Paul don't seem like theyre gonna get through the primaries, unfortunately. That'll leave someone like Jeb or Cruz to lose in the main election. 

Personally, I like Warren. I don't think shes actually gonna run though. I'm more interested in the process than anything.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Apr 11, 2015)

SkeletonBias said:


> Jeb Bush looks strong on paper, but he is going to follow the exact same trajectory that Rudy Giuliani took during his campaign in 2008. Despite polling well and having a lot of money, Bush will falter in the early states and end up running out of steam by the time Super Tuesday rolls around. He won't even compete in Iowa, will get upset by one or two candidates in New Hampshire, and then under-perform in Florida because he'll have to be competing against Rubio.



I don't think Bush is going to flame out exactly the same way Giuliani did.  Giuliani's "ignore everything until Florida" strategy was extremely unorthodox and risky, it didn't work, and I can't see why anybody would want to emulate it unless they were a total political dunce, which Jeb isn't, as even his strongest detractors would admit.  Big picture I agree that Giuliani may well be the heir to Rudy's mantle of "the guy everybody expects do be a strong contender who proves underwhelming", I just don't expect him to emulate Giuiliani's specific mistakes so closely.




Lefty's Revenge said:


> Whatever happens I don't think the republican party wins in 2016. The party is being branded (and at times branding themselves) as the party of idiots in alot of people's minds and thats not good for anyone.



I dunno, that perception is very real, but at the same time I think it is mostly held by people who would never have voted Republicans anyway, so its electoral impact is slim.


----------



## Teddy (Apr 12, 2015)

Oh God. I'm already hearing and seeing the feminists go wild over Clinton.

I am not looking forward to this election at all. The media is gonna try their hardest to make the candidates look like complete saints or devils. They've done this forever, yes, but it's getting worse.


----------



## XYZpdq (Apr 12, 2015)

So at work we're taking calls on "lol that logo sucks" and somebody from a state the show isn't even in calls to shill for her.

How do you get that sort of job? I'd love to just sit on my ass and astroturf.


----------



## RP 520 (Apr 12, 2015)

dcisp said:


> So at work we're taking calls on "lol that logo sucks" and somebody from a state the show isn't even in calls to shill for her.
> 
> How do you get that sort of job? I'd love to just sit on my ass and astroturf.



Get ready for Hillary's infamously hostile campaign machine.


----------



## Tookie (Apr 14, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> I don't think Bush is going to flame out exactly the same way Giuliani did.  Giuliani's "ignore everything until Florida" strategy was extremely unorthodox and risky, it didn't work, and I can't see why anybody would want to emulate it unless they were a total political dunce, which Jeb isn't, as even his strongest detractors would admit.  Big picture I agree that Giuliani may well be the heir to Rudy's mantle of "the guy everybody expects do be a strong contender who proves underwhelming", I just don't expect him to emulate Giuiliani's specific mistakes so closely.


Giuliani's "ignore everything until Florida" wasn't entirely by choice, it was in large part because it became clear he couldn't appeal to the electorate in primary states on the calendar before Florida, I just think Jeb will get backed into a similar corner. Iowa is a lost cause and he'll probably bypass the state entirely to save face. New Hampshire will be a battle with Walker and Paul that he may not survive. He's going to either have to gamble and wait for more favorable states and probably lose his momentum or go all-in and probably get embarrassed.

I don't think Jeb is an idiot, but I do think he and his advisers are severely underestimating people's revulsion to a Bush v. Clinton contest.


----------



## Sweet and Savoury (Apr 14, 2015)

Bush 3.0 vs Clinton 2.0

Ya'll are _royally_ fucked.


----------



## Zeorus (Apr 14, 2015)

As an observer from the radical left, I've been paying a bit more attention to the Democratic nomination (although I will likely vote for a third-party candidate since a socialist or communist will never get the Democratic nomination).  A lot of American socialists are flipping their shit over Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (the latter of whom openly identifies as a democratic socialist).

My take on these two?  Neither would be likely to get my vote, although Sanders is a bit more likely.  Warren trots out a lot of big talk that's very attractive to socialists, liberals and progressives (especially young lefties), but doesn't back it up on issues that are truly important to "my people" (like Israeli-Palestinian conflict, police violence against racial minorities, etc.)  She also seems really disingenuous to me in an icky sort of way that I don't know how to articulate.

Sanders has a bit more appeal as the only open socialist in Congress, but suffers from some of the same problems.  He's pro-Israel (which is a real problem if he wants to form any kind of coalition between the Democrats and groups like the Greens, Socialist Alternative or DSA) and so far seems to be mostly talk with little action.  A lot of radical leftists are also pretty skeptical as to whether he can truly be called a "socialist" or not given his willingness to work with the Democrats (although those arguments mostly consist of "no true Scotsman" fallacies and Marxist circlejerks).

I'm still not sure what the third-party scene is going to be - rumor has it that Jill Stein will run with the Greens again, and Kshama Sawant from Socialist Alternative has been pegged as a possible candidate.


----------



## Teddy (Apr 14, 2015)

I REALLY hope Jeb or Hillary don't win. The former is probably a complete RINO and the latter is an annoying demagogue. Plus I don't need another Bush or Clinton in the House. I know some of my extreme leftist peers who will vote for Hillary SORELY because,  "Well, she's a woman. And therefore she'll make the country a better place. We don't need anymore White men in the office. This is the new America".

And of course the media is acting as if the election is this month. Good God.


----------



## ASoulMan (Apr 14, 2015)

All I hope with this election is that the candidates aren't crazy people.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Apr 15, 2015)

Zeorus said:


> Sanders has a bit more appeal as the only open socialist in Congress, but suffers from some of the same problems.  He's pro-Israel (which is a real problem if he wants to form any kind of coalition between the Democrats and groups like the Greens, Socialist Alternative or DSA)



I think Sanders has absolutely zero interest in forming a coalition with any of those groups, so from a tactical perspective his positions are consistent.  I think you're also projecting a bit when you say that the issues that are truly important to the radical left are Israel/Palestine and racism in the justice system, especially the first one.  A lot of radical leftists are primarily oriented towards economic issues, chiefly limiting (and hopefully dismantling) corporate power and increased financial support for the working class.  Warren does make good (if vague, but we're talking comparatively) noises in that area, so I can see why to some she'd be as attractive as Sanders.

Frankly there is no way Sanders is going to get the nomination, not least because he's not actually a Democrat.  I know that doesn't formally prevent him from getting the Democratic nomination, but in practice it's a massive gimme to any opponent debating him.


----------



## Mourning Dove (Apr 16, 2015)

So according to this political quiz the top three parties I most side with are:

Green Party - 91%
Democrats - 85%
Libertarians - 45%

Hooray. But I still don't know who to vote for.


----------



## Yaoi Huntress Earth (Apr 16, 2015)

For me...


Mike Huckabee: While I think the Fair Tax plan would be an interesting experiment. Given his support of  David Barton and other aspects, I have a feeling that Huckabee wouldn't mind letting America become more a theocracy.
Rand Paul: There's just something about him after I saw an interview where he claimed he would get rid of unnecessary government regulations and rules and then got really dodgey when the reporter asked which ones. I thought this was a very good question and although he reluctantly answered (Obamacare was the only thing he mentioned), it still left a bit of a bad impression.
Sarah Palin: She'll probably throw in her hat to get attention and then quit after a while.
Ted Cruz: There's somethings that are off about him. I'll admit that I don't really trust the modern Republican party. They don't want to work with others for the greater good of the country and this is the time where all this bickering is doing no good.
For me, I'm going with an independent. I know it's a "wasted vote", but a friend convinced me the true wasted votes are the ones you don't use or done without using your conscience.


----------



## Zeorus (Apr 16, 2015)




----------



## Surtur (Apr 18, 2015)

@Hunger Mythos / @Hellblazer 2016


----------



## RP 520 (Apr 18, 2015)

Surtur said:


> @Hunger Mythos / @Hellblazer 2016



If I could rate this Semper-Fidelis, I would.


----------



## Teddy (Apr 18, 2015)

While I don't know/care much about Rand Paul,  I applaud him for not taking the crap that is spewed out from the mainstream media. Any time a Republican (even Democrats one and awhile) does that, they're quickly label aggressive or hateful.

Though,  I'm sure he'll get toned down when election time is closer.


----------



## EI 903 (Apr 20, 2015)

Surtur said:


> @Hunger Mythos / @Hellblazer 2016



As vice president, I promise to continue the proud VP tradition of shitting myself and doing nothing.


----------



## Picklechu (Apr 20, 2015)

Hellblazer said:


> As vice president, I promise to continue the proud VP tradition of shitting myself and doing nothing.


Don't forget about giving awkward back massages to the wives and daughters of Senators, Representatives, and Cabinet members.


----------



## EI 903 (Apr 20, 2015)

Picklechu said:


> Don't forget about giving awkward back massages to the wives and daughters of Senators, Representatives, and Cabinet members.



Blarting for America.


----------



## Konstantinos (Apr 21, 2015)

My vote goes out to the hero America deserves and needs.







He's also the least ridiculous out of all the presidential candidates so that's a plus.


----------



## Picklechu (Apr 22, 2015)

Konstantinos said:


> My vote already goes out to the hero America deserves and needs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like his glitter policy, but I'm not sure if I'm too comfortable with his socialist "free pony" policy.


----------



## Zeorus (Apr 23, 2015)

Picklechu said:


> I like his glitter policy, but I'm not sure if I'm too comfortable with his socialist "free pony" policy.



Would you rather have the next PotUS deny our Constitutional rights to own ponies?


----------



## Picklechu (Apr 23, 2015)

Zeorus said:


> Would you rather have the next PotUS deny our Constitutional rights to own ponies?


TNSTAAFP--There's no such thing as a free pony.


----------



## Holdek (Apr 23, 2015)

EleSigma said:


> Get ready for Hillary's infamously hostile campaign machine.


As opposed to the Republicans, who are just sunshine and rainbows in the Atwater/Rove tradition.


----------



## SJWs are cool (Apr 25, 2015)

Holdek said:


> As opposed to the Republicans, who are just sunshine and rainbows in the Atwater/Rove tradition.


"By the time we're finished, they're going to wonder whether Willie Horton is Dukakis' running mate."

prediction: Hillary wins handily

I could deal with Hillary/Warren or Paul

Ted Cruz is hella creepy


----------



## Atsimuel (Apr 25, 2015)

exball said:


> Normally I'm democratic but the idea of Hilary Clinton as president terrifies me.





dabluearmedbandit said:


> fudck all govmint analchest 4 lyfe fegs
> 
> EDIT: Honestly though, I'm probably going to vote Republican just to vote against Hillary. What's that joke about never voting for anyone, just always against someone? That's how the last few elections have been for me.


I'm English, and my sister is kind of in love with Hilary (Seriously, the other night while I was trying to sleep she practically barged in just to tell me that she had started reading her autobiography) so obviously I only hear good things about her. Reading this thread I'm beginning to think that maybe my sister doesn't really know what she's talking about. What is it about Hilary exactly that's off-putting?


----------



## Goddessoftheshire (Apr 25, 2015)

I'm not happy about Hillary, but I will probably vote for her. I could not in good conscience vote Republican especially with the GOP embrace of the Christian fundamentalists. The thing with the GOP is there are some issues I agree with, but as long as they are so set against the Gay community, and immigration I just don't see them getting my vote any time soon. Also what I don't understand about the GOP is why are the sane Republicans always silenced quickly by the crazy religious wing of the party?


----------



## Yaoi Huntress Earth (Apr 25, 2015)

Goddessoftheshire said:


> I'm not happy about Hillary, but I will probably vote for her. I could not in good conscience vote Republican especially with the GOP embrace of the Christian fundamentalists. The thing with the GOP is there are some issues I agree with, but as long as they are so set against the Gay community, and immigration I just don't see them getting my vote any time soon. Also what I don't understand about the GOP is why are the sane Republicans always silenced quickly by the crazy religious wing of the party?


The party has a tendency to turn away their saner and/or gay members. The gay republicans can only be guests at best now a days at conventions.


----------



## Goddessoftheshire (Apr 25, 2015)

Yaoi Huntress Earth said:


> The party has a tendency to turn away their saner and/or gay members. The gay republicans can only be guests at best now a days at conventions.



I think I heard on the news that the Log Cabin Republicans were not invited to another pac?


----------



## Yaoi Huntress Earth (Apr 25, 2015)

Goddessoftheshire said:


> I think I heard on the news that the Log Cabin Republicans were not invited to another pac?


Yep. It's the second time I heard of it. They're shooting themselves in the foot by getting rid of their minority supporters.


----------



## Teddy (Apr 25, 2015)

The GOP is a joke. Nothing but weak RINOs like Boehner, McCain, Bush or Cowell who represent the party and don't accomplish crap. Just a bunch of talk. At least the Democrats actually do things to indoctrinate the young with their values, despite myself personally thinking they do more harm than good. The GOP has practically given up on trying to get more blacks and youth,  aka the Democrats' gifted children.


----------



## Hat (Apr 25, 2015)

Teddy said:


> The GOP is a joke. Nothing but weak RINOs like Boehner, McCain, Bush or Cowell who represent the party and don't accomplish crap. Just a bunch of talk.


Are you going to be voting Constitution, then?


----------



## Teddy (Apr 25, 2015)

Hat said:


> Are you going to be voting Constitution, then?



I wish that'll make a difference. The US political parties are so narrow, that you only have Democrat or Republican to choose if you want an impact. 

Still,  I may. Most of their views are pretty similar to mine's and they're not as lenient or fake as the GOP. Though, if Walker or Paul get the nomination,  I'm voting Republican. Unless they start toning down.


----------



## Splendid (Apr 25, 2015)

Hey, be cool like me and use your vote for the Libertarian Party. At least it's not full of corrupt idiots, and you'll get gay rights, immigration, as well as a balanced budget and no socialist bullshit.
</shill>


----------



## Hat (Apr 25, 2015)

Splendid Meat Sticks said:


> Hey, be cool like me and use your vote for the Libertarian Party. At least it's not full of corrupt idiots, and you'll get gay rights, immigration, as well as a balanced budget and no socialist bullshit.
> </shill>


I might vote Libertarian if I don't like the Republican or Constitution candidates. If I don't like the Libertarian candidate, I'll probably just end up voting Republican on principle.


----------



## Splendid (Apr 26, 2015)

Hat said:


> I might vote Libertarian if I don't like the Republican or Constitution candidates. If I don't like the Libertarian candidate, I'll probably just end up voting Republican on principle.


It'll be Gary Johnson. It's all but confirmed.


----------



## SJWs are cool (Apr 27, 2015)

Atsimuel said:


> I'm English, and my sister is kind of in love with Hilary (Seriously, the other night while I was trying to sleep she practically barged in just to tell me that she had started reading her autobiography) so obviously I only hear good things about her. Reading this thread I'm beginning to think that maybe my sister doesn't really know what she's talking about. What is it about Hilary exactly that's off-putting?


list of things about Hillary some people dislike:

she is a woman
she is white
she is friendly with wall street and moneyed interests 
the insane number of anti-Hillary conspiracies from ~1988 to present
she's into LGBT rights and feminism
she is a communist nazi


list of things about Hillary some people like:

she is a woman
she is white
she is friendly with wall street and moneyed interests 
the insane number of anti-Hillary conspiracies from ~1988 to present
she's into LGBT rights and feminism
she is a centrist


----------



## Holdek (Apr 27, 2015)

Atsimuel said:


> I'm English, and my sister is kind of in love with Hilary (Seriously, the other night while I was trying to sleep she practically barged in just to tell me that she had started reading her autobiography) so obviously I only hear good things about her. Reading this thread I'm beginning to think that maybe my sister doesn't really know what she's talking about. What is it about Hilary exactly that's off-putting?


She was one of the main cheer leaders for invading Iraq.  The Republicans would probably like that about her, but it's the reason she wasn't an option for me in the 2008 Democratic Primary and the reason I wish she wasn't a shoe-in for the nomination this time.


----------



## Tookie (Apr 27, 2015)

Atsimuel said:


> I'm English, and my sister is kind of in love with Hilary (Seriously, the other night while I was trying to sleep she practically barged in just to tell me that she had started reading her autobiography) so obviously I only hear good things about her. Reading this thread I'm beginning to think that maybe my sister doesn't really know what she's talking about. What is it about Hilary exactly that's off-putting?


The Clintons pioneered a strategy called "triangulation" which meant they would mix together policies/talking points from the left and the right when convenient to cobble together a majority. This would usually work for a while but eventually both sides would decide they were full of shit.


----------



## Picklechu (Apr 28, 2015)

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a self-described socialist, will declare that he's seeking the Democratic nomination on Thursday.


----------



## Zeorus (Apr 29, 2015)

Picklechu said:


> Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a self-described socialist, will declare that he's seeking the Democratic nomination on Thursday.



He'll never get it.  He'll be fun in the primary debates but Clinton or Warren will crush him (probably Clinton).


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Apr 30, 2015)

So, dumb question time - how can Sanders contest the Democratic nomination when he's not a Democrat?  Are Democratic primaries open to candidates from outside the party?  Or is he going to join the Democratic party for the sole purpose of seeking the nomination )(and if so, isn't he providing his opponents with a very easy attack angle?)

I mean I know he's not going to win and is just running in the hope of shifting the general agenda leftward, but I'm not sure how he's even able to run.


----------



## chimpburgers (Apr 30, 2015)

Picklechu said:


> Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a self-described socialist, will declare that he's seeking the Democratic nomination on Thursday.


Not happening. I used to like Sanders more a few years ago but he just rubs me the wrong way now for some reason.


----------



## Tookie (Apr 30, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> So, dumb question time - how can Sanders contest the Democratic nomination when he's not a Democrat?  Are Democratic primaries open to candidates from outside the party?  Or is he going to join the Democratic party for the sole purpose of seeking the nomination )(and if so, isn't he providing his opponents with a very easy attack angle?)
> 
> I mean I know he's not going to win and is just running in the hope of shifting the general agenda leftward, but I'm not sure how he's even able to run.


Party registrations are handled on a state basis so technically none of the candidates running are registered Democrats in any of the primary states unless it happens to be their home state (i.e. Hillary Clinton is legally a Democrat only in New York, etc.).   They will probably have to sign off on a form in each state saying they are a Democrat or identify with the party but there is no legal framework beyond that since Vermont's party registrations or lack thereof don't carry any water outside Vermont. Officially, the DNC doesn't care and will presumably let him keep any delegates he wins without registering with the party.


----------



## Picklechu (Apr 30, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> So, dumb question time - how can Sanders contest the Democratic nomination when he's not a Democrat?  Are Democratic primaries open to candidates from outside the party?  Or is he going to join the Democratic party for the sole purpose of seeking the nomination )(and if so, isn't he providing his opponents with a very easy attack angle?)
> 
> I mean I know he's not going to win and is just running in the hope of shifting the general agenda leftward, but I'm not sure how he's even able to run.


US Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, brought this up a few months ago. I think she said that they wouldn't open up the debates to him if he weren't a registered Democrat, but they can't really keep him off the ballot or anything.


----------



## Tookie (Apr 30, 2015)

Picklechu said:


> US Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, brought this up a few months ago. I think she said that they wouldn't open up the debates to him if he weren't a registered Democrat, but they can't really keep him off the ballot or anything.


They could block him from a few debates, but the vast majority of them won't be sponsored by the DNC so they won't have any say in the matter. The ballot issue will be determined entirely on a state-by-state basis with no input from the national party.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Apr 30, 2015)

SkeletonBias said:


> Party registrations are handled on a state basis so technically none of the candidates running are registered Democrats in any of the primary states unless it happens to be their home state (i.e. Hillary Clinton is legally a Democrat only in New York, etc.).



I know I've said this before, and will say it again, but... what a truly bizarre system.  Thanks for explaining, nonetheless.


----------



## Picklechu (Apr 30, 2015)

SkeletonBias said:


> They could block him from a few debates, but the vast majority of them won't be sponsored by the DNC so they won't have any say in the matter. The ballot issue will be determined entirely on a state-by-state basis with no input from the national party.


I'm talking about the primary debates. They haven't set up debate schedules or anything, really, for those yet, and the DNC, if they wanted, could set the criteria.


----------



## Tookie (Apr 30, 2015)

Picklechu said:


> I'm talking about the primary debates. They haven't set up debate schedules or anything, really, for those yet, and the DNC, if they wanted, could set the criteria.


Most of the primary debates will be held by local parties, newspapers/TV stations, universities, and civic groups in early primary states. If Bernie Sanders is a viable candidate he will be invited to attend by the hosts regardless of how much Wasserman Schultz wants to complain.


----------



## Picklechu (Apr 30, 2015)

SkeletonBias said:


> Most of the primary debates will be held by local parties, newspapers/TV stations, universities, and civic groups in early primary states. If Bernie Sanders is a viable candidate he will be invited to attend by the hosts regardless of how much Wasserman Schultz wants to complain.


Yes, but they have the option of taking the same steps that the RNC did and stripping delegates, among other potential enforcement mechanisms. I don't necessarily see it happening, but, until they say so one way or the other, it's a possibility.


----------



## Picklechu (May 3, 2015)

As of this Tuesday, the Republican field will consist of: Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Mark Everson (don't worry about him; he's nobody), Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Dennis M. Lynch (less of a nobody than Everson), Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio. Over the next few months, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, and Scott Walker are expected to announce they're running. Potentially running are John Bolton, Bob Ehrlich, Jim Gilmore, John Kasich, Peter King, George Pataki, and Rick Snyder.

Likewise, the Democratic field will consist of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Lincoln Chafee, Martin O'Malley, and Jim Webb will probably jump in at some point before August. 

As for third parties and independents, there are a quite a few making bids or expected to make bids, but the most notable are: Roseanne Barr (Peace and Freedom Party), Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party), and Jill Stein (Green Party). The Constitution Party is actively trying to draft Steve Stockman to run, but I kind of doubt that they get him.


----------



## Hat (May 3, 2015)

Picklechu said:


> The Constitution Party is actively trying to draft Steve Stockman to run, but I kind of doubt that they get him.


What makes you say that?


----------



## Zeorus (May 3, 2015)

Little left-wing side note:

My friends in Socialist Party USA haven't said anything to me about nominating a candidate for 2016 (likely since I'm no longer a member), but I am aware of a significant faction within the party that wants to endorse Sanders as a third-party candidate (some even if he goes Democrat).  None of their previous candidates that I know of who are still with SPUSA are likely to run.


----------



## Picklechu (May 3, 2015)

Interestingly, typing this last post up made me go look for Dennis M. Lynch's platform again, and he appears to have removed his campaign site and deleted his Twitter and Facebook pages at some point in the past day. I may look around to see if he had some kind of campaign implosion (if you can call what he's running--he had to pay the NH GOP $10,000 just to go speak to them--a campaign).



Hat said:


> What makes you say that?


That they're recruiting him, or that they probably won't get him? The fact that they're recruiting him has been going around several third party circles. I don't think they'll get him because Steve Stockman only runs for office if it can get something for Steve Stockman. Running as a third party candidate after getting laughed off of the national stage in 2014 when he ran for the US Senate (which I still believe was an attempt to both retire his campaign debt and collect an email list to sell) won't really get him much of anything. (If congressmen could be lolcows, Steve Stockman would be close to one.)



Zeorus said:


> Little left-wing side note:
> 
> My friends in Socialist Party USA haven't said anything to me about nominating a candidate for 2016 (likely since I'm no longer a member), but I am aware of a significant faction within the party that wants to endorse Sanders as a third-party candidate (some even if he goes Democrat).  None of their previous candidates that I know of who are still with SPUSA are likely to run.


There was some guy from Florida (Capone or something like that) who had talked about running, but I'm not sure if he still is.

EDIT: Lynch apparently withdrew today (I wonder what he's going to do with the money he mentioned...)





ANOTHER EDIT: Found both of these Twitter accounts, which have some interesting information on them. I figured he was just looking for a Fox show and to sell DVDs and books, but he was apparently taking it to an entirely different level. I wonder if he's too well known to be a lolcow...


----------



## Oglooger (May 7, 2015)

This guy is the only person qualified for becoming President


----------



## DuskEngine (May 7, 2015)

Zeorus said:


> Little left-wing side note:
> 
> My friends in Socialist Party USA haven't said anything to me about nominating a candidate for 2016 (likely since I'm no longer a member), but I am aware of a significant faction within the party that wants to endorse Sanders as a third-party candidate (some even if he goes Democrat).  None of their previous candidates that I know of who are still with SPUSA are likely to run.



I don't think America is in a place yet where the mainstream parties start to collapse and have to engage in coalition-building (which is what we're seeing in several European countries) so an independent running on a Democratic ticket is probably the closest thing they'll get (for now). Plus socialist is still a really dirty word in mainstream American politics, so it'll be interesting to see how Bernie "proletarian revolutionist" Sanders navigates that minefield.


----------



## Randall Fragg (May 7, 2015)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ndependent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html
So, Bernie Sander has voted against gun control. That's a plus in my book, he'll respect my second amendment rights. Unless the gun grabber lobby gets to him.


----------



## Morbid Boredom (May 8, 2015)

Randall Fragg said:


> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ndependent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html
> So, Bernie Sander has voted against gun control. That's a plus in my book, he'll respect my second amendment rights. Unless the gun grabber lobby gets to him.


I'm of the opinion that Sanders is trying to bring attention to issues ignored by "electable" politicians.  He knows that being a self-proclaimed socialist makes him massively unpopular in some parts of the US.

That being said, I imagine lobbyists will ignore him on the grounds he's too much of a long-shot.


----------



## DuskEngine (May 8, 2015)

Morbid Boredom said:


> That being said, I imagine lobbyists will ignore him on the grounds he's too much of a long-shot.



Which he could totally turn into a strength, if he plays his cards right.

The impression I get is that Sanders hopes to capitalise on the populist dissent behind Occupy and similar movements that keeps fizzling out for want of an actual objective.


----------



## XYZpdq (May 8, 2015)

If anything could kick a third party person to a lead it would be Clinton vs Bush XVII


----------



## Picklechu (May 12, 2015)

This was odd.


----------



## Holdek (May 23, 2015)

Morbid Boredom said:


> I'm of the opinion that Sanders is trying to bring attention to issues ignored by "electable" politicians.



He and Ron Paul teamed up to promote auditing the Federal Reserve, IIRC.  Talk about a team of opposites!



Picklechu said:


> Yes, but they have the option of taking the same steps that the RNC did and stripping delegates, among other potential enforcement mechanisms. I don't necessarily see it happening, but, until they say so one way or the other, it's a possibility.


The DNC has said it will strip delegates from candidates participating in non-sanctioned debates (which has the added bonus to Hillary of giving her an out).  The RNC has intimated that they will is well.  Both parties want to prevent what happened with the Republicans in '12.



Picklechu said:


> That they're recruiting him, or that they probably won't get him? The fact that they're recruiting him has been going around several third party circles. I don't think they'll get him because Steve Stockman only runs for office if it can get something for Steve Stockman. Running as a third party candidate after getting laughed off of the national stage in 2014 when he ran for the US Senate (which I still believe was an attempt to both retire his campaign debt and collect an email list to sell) won't really get him much of anything. (If congressmen could be lolcows, Steve Stockman would be close to one.)


I met him back in the '90s when he was considered an lolcow in Houston political circles.  He was actually hooked up with militia types (might still be).  He _did_ eventually make it into Congress, though.  Still, that's probably more an indictment of the state of our union than an endorsement of Steve Stockman.



DawnMachine said:


> I don't think America is in a place yet where the mainstream parties start to collapse and have to engage in coalition-building (which is what we're seeing in several European countries) so an independent running on a Democratic ticket is probably the closest thing they'll get (for now). Plus socialist is still a really dirty word in mainstream American politics, so it'll be interesting to see how Bernie "proletarian revolutionist" Sanders navigates that minefield.


An independent could run as an independent if he had a shit-ton of his own money to spend like Michael Bloomberg (and was serious about winning electoral votes, unlike Ross Perot).



Randall Fragg said:


> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ndependent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html
> So, Bernie Sander has voted against gun control. That's a plus in my book, he'll respect my second amendment rights. Unless the gun grabber lobby gets to him.


So did Russ Feingold, the only member of the Senate to vote against the Patriot Act.  Maybe it's an iconoclastic thing?


----------



## Too Many Crooks (May 23, 2015)

As a liberal, I hate Hillary Clinton, but I hate anyone the Republicans are offering. 

Still, Hillary Clinton is just another conservative in a liberal costume:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/03/hillary-clinton-womens-rights-feminism/ 

Always accepting "the lesser of the 2 evils" is a horrible mindset for a voter.

Why vote for an evil at all?? 
I don't care if that sounds idealistic. 

The only decent candidate who has a shot at the U.S. presidency is Bernie Sanders. If not, then I'm voting for Dr. Jill Stein again (Green Party).


----------



## PacSol (May 23, 2015)

I'll prolly just vote for whoever the Dummycrats slop onto the table just to prevent the Republicunts and Libretardians from wrecking the country even more.... again. Sanders would be nice, but... too much of a long shot.


----------



## chimpburgers (May 24, 2015)

Too Many Crooks said:


> As a liberal, I hate Hillary Clinton, but I hate anyone the Republicans are offering.
> 
> Still, Hillary Clinton is just another conservative in a liberal costume:
> 
> ...


Anyone who's associated with someone who signed NAFTA into law (even though I'll also blame Reagan and his cronies for that one) or even Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act I'm going to think even less of and I don't give a shit if they're part of a party that I'd vote for.


----------



## The Dude (May 24, 2015)

Whichever candidate will support gay married couples to protect their pot farms with assault weapons. That's the candidate for me.


----------



## KatsuKitty (May 24, 2015)

The Dude said:


> Whichever candidate will support gay married couples to protect their pot farms with assault weapons. That's the candidate for me.



rand paul rand paul rand paul


----------



## DNJACK (May 24, 2015)

It's a real shame the US missed the opportunity to have Mitt Romney as president. There is no running away from total bankruptcy and collapse of the dominant position of the US in global trade now.


----------



## The Dude (May 24, 2015)

KatsuKitty said:


> rand paul rand paul rand paul



I dig Rand. I think he would be a great PotUS and he seems to be one of the few in government who actually gives a fuck about the personal liberties of the US citizens. I'm sick of all these Big Government stooges like the Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, Romneys, McCains, and so on. I'm also sick of the fact that there aren't term limits for the rest of government like there is for the President. Part of the reason our country is so fucked up is because people become senators or congressmen and stay there for decades making bad policy.


----------



## ʕノ•ᴥ•ʔノ Pander (May 24, 2015)

As a Kanadian observing from the sidelines, I think Rand Paul would be a good pick for the repubs. Dems would be better off with Sanders on the fact that despite he might be a bit too left for the dems liking, he's probably the least likely to be corrupt like hillary. 

Overall this is probably gonna be a very interesting election year for both US and Canada. Personally, as a conservative I'd be voting for rand given my pro-harper leanings. But we'll see how things go.


----------



## The Dude (May 24, 2015)

I don't see how anyone could vote for Clinton and still feel good about themselves. She is one of the most corrupt people in US history. All she wants is power and those are the wrong kind of people to have in office.


----------



## DNJACK (May 24, 2015)

The Dude said:


> I don't see how anyone could vote for Clinton and still feel good about themselves. She is one of the most corrupt people in US history. All she wants is power and those are the wrong kind of people to have in office.


lol anyone ever in politics wants power. Ideologues just want it to make the world exactly as they want.  Romney was the one exception.


----------



## Queen of Tarts (May 24, 2015)

I lean toward the left side on the political spectrum, but from what I've seen of Hillary, I hope another Dem candidate beats her.

So long as a really conservative person or Sarah Palin (which is about as likely as the moon falling on earth) doesn't get elected, I'm pretty okay with it.  There is a huge difference in social progress and social justice, though.


----------



## The Dude (May 24, 2015)

DNJACK said:


> lol anyone ever in politics wants power. Ideologues just want it to make the world exactly as they want.  Romney was the one exception.



I disagree with Romney. He was/is every bit a Big Government, power hungry stooge as Clinton, Obama, McCain, and so on. In fact, the only real difference between Obama and Romney is Romney would have been better with the economy since he is a savy businessman. Other than that their political views are damn near lockstep.


----------



## DNJACK (May 24, 2015)

Ima get serious here.

Romney was the dude representing the mainstream politician. No one ever was passionate ever about him. every vote he had was a vote against someone else. I guess the joke was only funny to me. It happens.

On the topic of Rand, there's no reason to trust him, after his father sabotage his campaign for nomination in the last election. He'll compromise whatever ideal he has for whatever power and money he can, like everyone in DC. Like every election, no matter who wins, no difference. Romney was your only chance.


----------



## Teddy (May 25, 2015)

So apparently celebrities like Snoop Dogg are endorsing Hilary Clinton for 2016. Of course. I'm sure none of them even know what her beliefs are. The Dogg basically he's voting for her sorely because she's a woman. No wonder people outside of the US laugh/deride us. Our spokespeople for media/entertainment are so clueless.

I'm already seeing people (peers) and the media going crazy for Bernie Sanders. I don't know much about him but I already don't like him. A little close-minded I guess. I know many of you here probably aren't even near to the right, but I would like to see a candidate who at least shares some values of the right (less gov, stricter boarders, etc). Instead of the same middle in the road Republicans. A radical on either side as president sounds more interesting than the same bland Democrat or Republican . Walker seems to not have flip flopped in favor of RINOS or extreme moderates yet, so that's cool I suppose.

With the way things are going, if Walker (or Paul, but that may change) doesn't get nominated, I'm going Constitution. It won't make a difference, but at least I can be glad that I voted for a party that shares similar views. I'm done with the lesser of two evils crap. Which is what my Dad, a Republican, tells me to do when I vote. Both major parties are corrupt and lead to trouble if the "best" candidate isn't picked.

_(Happy Memorial Day btw)_


----------



## Dudeofteenage (May 25, 2015)

Teddy said:


> The Dogg basically he's voting for her sorely because she's a woman. No wonder people outside of the US laugh/deride us.



Speaking as a non-American, that's not why I laugh/deride you.


----------



## DirkBloodStormKing (May 27, 2015)

Teddy said:


> Oh God. I'm already hearing and seeing the feminists go wild over Clinton.



Wait till the feminists find out that Hillary Clinton defended a _male _pedophile that abused a young girl in the past. And laughed at said victim. Hell, there are some feminists that know about this and have been advocating AGAINST voting Hillary because of it. Well, at least some feminists know that Clinton is full of shit.



Zeorus said:


> As an observer from the radical left, I've been paying a bit more attention to the Democratic nomination (although I will likely vote for a third-party candidate since a socialist or communist will never get the Democratic nomination).  A lot of American socialists are flipping their shit over Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (the latter of whom openly identifies as a democratic socialist).
> 
> My take on these two?  Neither would be likely to get my vote, although Sanders is a bit more likely.  Warren trots out a lot of big talk that's very attractive to socialists, liberals and progressives (especially young lefties), but doesn't back it up on issues that are truly important to "my people" (like Israeli-Palestinian conflict, police violence against racial minorities, etc.)  She also seems really disingenuous to me in an icky sort of way that I don't know how to articulate.
> 
> ...



According to this, I seem to have similar views to Bernie Sanders. That being said, because of his socialist views, he is probably not likely to get nominated. Plus, people know more about Hillary than the other candidates meaning that she is probably gonna get nominated. That being said, as a liberal/left-leaning person, if Clinton gets nominated, I'm voting Green Party.


----------



## Hat (May 27, 2015)

DirkBloodStormKing said:


> According to this, I seem to have similar views to Bernie Sanders.


According to that quiz, I side with Marco Rubio on 99% of the issues; I'll have to look into him.

In any case, I'm really not worried about Clinton in the least. All the scandals surrounding her notwithstanding, people just don't like her, even most liberals.


----------



## Teddy (May 27, 2015)

I too got Rubio when I took the test. I haven't even paid attention to the dude.  Then again, I didn't change most of the important factors out of laziness, so I could have gotten some one different. Who knows.

It also said that I side with Constitution 91%, Republicans 87%, Libertarians 80% (?), and Democrats 43% (no major issues)


----------



## Funnybone (May 27, 2015)

Looks like my beliefs become more republican as I get older and crankier.
I just wish they would shut up about abortion and anti-gay marriage though.
Rand Paul looks like who I'll be voting for SO FAR... but I need to do more research.


----------



## Holdek (May 27, 2015)

DirkBloodStormKing said:


> Wait till the feminists find out that Hillary Clinton defended a _male _pedophile that abused a young girl in the past. And laughed at said victim.


Wait...what?


----------



## chimpburgers (May 27, 2015)

Holdek said:


> Wait...what?


I did a quick Google search on that and one of the first links that popped up was something from Infowars, followed by The Daily Caller from last year, a Daily Mail link and a New York Post article. See a pattern there?


----------



## Holdek (May 27, 2015)

dollarpennypincher said:


> I did a quick Google search on that and one of the first links that popped up was something from Infowars, followed by The Daily Caller from last year, a Daily Mail link and a New York Post article. See a pattern there?


We'll know it's for real if _Newsmax_ can independently verify it.


----------



## Picklechu (May 27, 2015)

Rick Santorum jumped into the Republican race today. Tomorrow, George Pataki will announce his run, and next week Lindsey Graham and Rick Perry will jump in. Martin O'Malley will announce his Democratic bid on Saturday. So far, the following Democrats and Republicans are officially running or will announce a bid within the week:

Democrats
Hillary Clinton
Martin O'Malley
Bernie Sanders

Republicans 
Ben Carson
Ted Cruz
Mark Everson
Carly Fiorina
Lindsey Graham
Mike Huckabee
George Pataki
Rand Paul
Rick Perry
Marco Rubio
Rick Santorum

Also expected to run are Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Scott Walker, Lincoln Chafee, and Jim Webb.


----------



## Holdek (May 27, 2015)




----------



## SU 390 (May 27, 2015)

Zeorus said:


> As an observer from the radical left, I've been paying a bit more attention to the Democratic nomination (although I will likely vote for a third-party candidate since a socialist or communist will never get the Democratic nomination).  A lot of American socialists are flipping their shit over Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (the latter of whom openly identifies as a democratic socialist).
> 
> My take on these two?  Neither would be likely to get my vote, although Sanders is a bit more likely.  Warren trots out a lot of big talk that's very attractive to socialists, liberals and progressives (especially young lefties), but doesn't back it up on issues that are truly important to "my people" (like Israeli-Palestinian conflict, police violence against racial minorities, etc.)  She also seems really disingenuous to me in an icky sort of way that I don't know how to articulate.
> 
> ...





PacSol said:


> I'll prolly just vote for whoever the Dummycrats slop onto the table just to prevent the Republicunts and Libretardians from wrecking the country even more.... again. Sanders would be nice, but... too much of a long shot.



Since it's all related, I feel that Sanders is too good to be true. All of his ideas are great but I can't help but get that he won't be as great as he's selling himself out to be.


----------



## Hat (May 27, 2015)

WanderingVagabond said:


> Since it's all related, I feel that Sanders is too good to be true. All of his ideas are great but I can't help but get that he won't be as great as he's selling himself out to be.


What exactly is Sanders promising? I understand that he's a full-blown socialist, but I haven't heard any of his actual plans.


----------



## SU 390 (May 27, 2015)

Hat said:


> What exactly is Sanders promising? I understand that he's a full-blown socialist, but I haven't heard any of his actual plans.



http://www.ontheissues.org/Bernie_Sanders.htm


----------



## Dudeofteenage (May 28, 2015)

Picklechu said:


> Republicans
> Ben Carson
> Ted Cruz
> Mark Everson
> ...



Of that massively crowded Republican field, I'd say only Paul, Rubio and Bush are serious candidates.  Maybe Cruz on the outside.

Seriously though, George Pataki is running?  Did he hit his head and start thinking it was 2000 again?


----------



## Picklechu (May 28, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> Of that massively crowded Republican field, I'd say only Paul, Rubio and Bush are serious candidates.  Maybe Cruz on the outside.
> 
> Seriously though, George Pataki is running?  Did he hit his head and start thinking it was 2000 again?


Yeah, Pataki's announcement will be in about 7.5 hours in Exeter, NH. No way in Hell he'll win the nomination, but if he does well enough (and if someone younger, without executive experience, weakness on national security, and/or is too far right), he might have a shot at the VP slot.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (May 28, 2015)

Picklechu said:


> Yeah, Pataki's announcement will be in about 7.5 hours in Exeter, NH. No way in Hell he'll win the nomination, but if he does well enough (and if someone younger, without executive experience, weakness on national security, and/or is too far right), he might have a shot at the VP slot.



I'd say even that is a stretch.  He might get to be Secretary of something or other, I suppose.


----------



## Shokew (May 28, 2015)

Ron Paul and Jeb Bush are probably the ONLY Republicans I could ever take seriously, TBH... Too bad I can't help but feel we might get dragged into more pointless wars if another Republican takes office, but that isn't limited to them, either. We just need more sane conservatives working alongside these liberals, if that means anything.

Seriously though, it's like everyday, I can't help but feel anarchy is the only solution to too many of America's problems - and I hate feeling that way. If anarchy ever comes to this nation... It will never recover from it. Ever. I could still be a frustrated teenager and still see everything wrong with that thinking (and I used to think like this would make America, and the world, a better place. I WAS A FOOL and deserved every bit of cursing out my parents gave me for thinking like this.).


----------



## Picklechu (Jun 1, 2015)

Lindsey Graham will be taking the stage in about ten minutes to announce his presidential bid.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Jun 1, 2015)

Picklechu said:


> Lindsey Graham will be taking the stage in about ten minutes to announce his presidential bid.



Wow, I can't wait to see what he says.  I'm really fired up for a Graham candidacy.

...said nobody ever


----------



## waffle (Jun 3, 2015)

I'm a Rand Paul fan, but honestly I hope sanders gets the Dem nomination. He may be a an avowed socialist, but he at least seems like an honest dude and we could use some more of that. Most main line Democrats and Republicans are at least as big of socialists as sanders anyway, they're just afraid of the word. On top of that, sanders seems to at least care about people's non-economic freedoms.


----------



## Holdek (Jun 3, 2015)

WanderingVagabond said:


> Since it's all related, I feel that Sanders is too good to be true. All of his ideas are great but I can't help but get that he won't be as great as he's selling himself out to be.


Eh that kind of critique is better for someone who promises a lot but then disappoints once they get in (like Obama).  Sanders will never be President so he can promise the world on a platter and still retain a fan following because he will never face the obstacles and oppositions of reality in office.  Basically he has nothing to lose because he will never have to deliver.


----------



## Picklechu (Jun 3, 2015)

Lincoln Chafee will be jumping in on the Democratic side in a few hours. He served as a Republican U.S. Senator from 1999-2007, was elected Governor of Rhode Island as an independent in 2010, became a Democrat in 2013, and left office this past January. While a Senator, he was the only Republican to vote against the Iraq War, which is what his candidacy seems to be centered around, based on his rhetoric so far (since Clinton voted for it).


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Jun 3, 2015)

Holdek said:


> Eh that kind of critique is better for someone who promises a lot but then disappoints once they get in (like Obama).  Sanders will never be President so he can promise the world on a platter and still retain a fan following because he will never face the obstacles and oppositions of reality in office.  Basically he has nothing to lose because he will never have to deliver.



He doesn't really have much to gain, either, though.  Where can he go from here?  He's not going to get a Cabinet position, being Governor of Vermont is probably a step down from being a Senator (apologies to any Green Mountain boys here)... I think this campaign is really more about trying to push the Democrats as a whole a bit to the left.  Which seems a respectable enough goal, even if it's likely to fail.


----------



## Zeorus (Jun 4, 2015)

Picklechu said:


> Lincoln Chafee will be jumping in on the Democratic side in a few hours. He served as a Republican U.S. Senator from 1999-2007, was elected Governor of Rhode Island as an independent in 2010, became a Democrat in 2013, and left office this past January. While a Senator, he was the only Republican to vote against the Iraq War, which is what his candidacy seems to be centered around, based on his rhetoric so far (since Clinton voted for it).



I ended up watching Wolf Blitzer interview him last night while in the waiting room of my local ER.  The man simply refused to give any straight answers beyond "I VOTED 'GAINST DA WAR!"  Not that this is surprising, but it's going to be one hell of a boring campaign if this continues.


----------



## Picklechu (Jun 4, 2015)

Zeorus said:


> I ended up watching Wolf Blitzer interview him last night while in the waiting room of my local ER.  The man simply refused to give any straight answers beyond "I VOTED 'GAINST DA WAR!"  Not that this is surprising, but it's going to be one hell of a boring campaign if this continues.


Chafee's pretty nutty. He was an unpopular Senator, he was an unpopular Governor with few (if any) accomplishments, and his campaign's focus is extraordinarily narrow.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Jun 4, 2015)

I can see why Chafee is emphasising his opposition to the Iraq war, because it is a position that's been largely vindicated.

The problem is there's already an anti-war candidate in Sanders.  So I guess Chafee's relying on support from people who are really unhappy about the Iraq war (so unhappy that it's still a big deal for them ten years later), but who find Sanders too left wing on other issues?  That strikes me as a pretty small niche, especially inside the Democratic party.


----------



## KatsuKitty (Jun 7, 2015)

It's pretty telling that there's unanimity that the Iraq War was a failure. Bush and Cheney seem to be the last two people who thought it was a net gain. 

Asking candidates this question (whether or not they supported the Iraq War in the end) comes down to a reporter's thinly-veiled criticism that the GOP would repeat what is widely construed to be our country's most disastrous foreign policy decision since Vietnam.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Jun 7, 2015)

KatsuKitty said:


> It's pretty telling that there's unanimity that the Iraq War was a failure. Bush and Cheney seem to be the last two people who thought it was a net gain.



The relevant question should be the general one, not the specific one - not "Do you think the Iraq war was a good idea", since almost everybody agrees it wasn't, but "Do you think that pre-emptive wars in third world countries are a good idea"?

Like, if you'd gone around asking American politicians whether they thought the Vietnam war was a good idea in 2000, they'd all have said "no", but they mostly voted to invade Iraq anyway.


----------



## Picklechu (Jun 10, 2015)

I just saw this on my Facebook timeline. I'm not sure if this guy is joking or serious.


----------



## Pikimon (Jun 11, 2015)

I nominate RuPaul for president, Rush Limbaugh as Vice President, Lena Dunham as Speaker of the House and Sarah Palin as our head of the Environmental Protection Agency for shits and giggles.


----------



## Mourning Dove (Jun 14, 2015)

So the candidates I side with the most are...

Bernie Sanders - 77%
Martin O'Malley - 68%
Hillary Clinton - 65%

Hooray.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Jun 14, 2015)

Mourning Dove said:


> So the candidates I side with the most are...
> 
> Bernie Sanders - 77%
> Martin O'Malley - 68%
> ...



It really saddens me that people take those "Which candidate/party should you support" apps/sites seriously.


----------



## Hat (Jun 14, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> It really saddens me that people take those "Which candidate/party should you support" apps/sites seriously.


I think most people just do them for fun.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Jun 14, 2015)

Hat said:


> I think most people just do them for fun.



Possibly, but it seems like I quite often see people posting/sharing "It told me I should support this party, that's something to think about!".


----------



## XYZpdq (Jun 14, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> Possibly, but it seems like I quite often see people posting/sharing "It told me I should support this party, that's something to think about!".


But dude, it totally SAID I'm a libertarian! I just never knew it!


----------



## Teddy (Jun 14, 2015)

I don't take them seriously. Some of the quizzes are far from what I believe/associate with. I.e libertarian.


----------



## chimpburgers (Jun 14, 2015)

I'm in the whole I did that quiz for fun crowd. Despite not being a fan of either the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party, one of the quizzes said that a decent chunk of my views could be aligned with that or the Green Party and I laughed.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Jun 14, 2015)

dcisp said:


> But dude, it totally SAID I'm a libertarian! I just never knew it!



Well you're a 20-40 year old American guy talking about politics on the internet, so there's at least 50% chance that you are a self-identified libertarian.


----------



## Teddy (Jun 14, 2015)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what's with the recent boom of people (especially my fellow millennials) proclaiming themselves libertarians? I don't see what's so attractive about the party honestly. I feel like there are many people who are libertarians just to sound cool and trendy. They don't like the title conservative, progressive, or liberal because of what they're associated with, so just say that they're a libertarian, even if their views lean more conservative or liberal.

Also, Ron Paul, who libertarians lionized.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Jun 14, 2015)

I said this elsewhere, so apologies to anyone who thinks I'm repeating myself, but - a lot of people use the word "libertarian" as a way to try to signal that on the one hand they are disengaged from contemporary politics, but on the other hand they have firmly held and deeply thought out political principles (even if they are often unable to describe them beyond 'I'm a libertarian').  I've seen self-proclaimed 'libertarians' argue in favour of some distinctly un-libertarian things.  To put it more succinctly, they are trying to signal that they are disengaged but not apathetic - to accrue the social capital that comes from cynicism without losing the social capital that comes from being vague or unprincipled.

'Libertarianism' is a word that has definitely become higher profile in the general public sphere in the last twenty years, but I'm not sure that's due to a renewed faith in libertarian principles, let alone a deeper engagement with libertarian thought.  It's mostly just a form of social signalling.

"Anarchist" has a broadly similar function to people on the left, but a longer pedigree.


----------



## chimpburgers (Jun 14, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> I said this elsewhere, so apologies to anyone who thinks I'm repeating myself, but - a lot of people use the word "libertarian" as a way to try to signal that on the one hand they are disengaged from contemporary politics, but on the other hand they have firmly held and deeply thought out political principles (even if they are often unable to describe them beyond 'I'm a libertarian').  I've seen self-proclaimed 'libertarians' argue in favour of some distinctly un-libertarian things.  To put it more succinctly, they are trying to signal that they are disengaged but not apathetic - to accrue the social capital that comes from cynicism without losing the social capital that comes from being vague or unprincipled.
> 
> 'Libertarianism' is a word that has definitely become higher profile in the general public sphere in the last twenty years, but I'm not sure that's due to a renewed faith in libertarian principles, let alone a deeper engagement with libertarian thought.  It's mostly just a form of social signalling.
> 
> "Anarchist" has a broadly similar function to people on the left, but a longer pedigree.


I've often heard that in countries outside of the US, libertarianism itself has different meanings than what Americans first think of. Here, it's obviously most associated with organizations like the Cato Institute, Reason Foundation and the Mises Institute and that whole Ron Paul/Rand Paul crowd, but that doesn't mean that there aren't left-libertarians out there. Even in those groups I mentioned, they have their own degree of how libertarian they are and what they consider to be libertarianism. There are different kinds of libertarianism depending on where people are on the political spectrum like right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism.

Noam Chomsky identifies himself as a libertarian socialist at times though I've also heard of instances where he's called himself an anarchist. Even Bill Maher called himself a libertarian at one point so there's a lot of variation that goes on. I'm sure Milton Friedman identified himself as a libertarian but a pragmatist too and didn't agree with a lot of the views that someone like Murray Rothbard had, and he apparently had a big beef with Ayn Rand, another person I've seen lumped into that whole libertarian movement too. You can see how there's still plenty of debate that goes on in these circles pertaining to this.

I do also believe that there are a lot of people out there that don't really understand the nuances of what these terms mean so they'll call themselves libertarian as you said because they want to sound like they're not part of the establishment.


----------



## XYZpdq (Jun 14, 2015)

I thought libertarian meant "pot smoking republican".


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Jun 14, 2015)

dollarpennypincher said:


> I've often heard that in countries outside of the US, libertarianism itself has different meanings than what Americans first think of



That's something of a countermyth.  While Chomsky does indeed describe himself as a libertarian socialist, it's telling that he has to qualify it (because leaving out the 'socialist' part would not leave people thinking, well, he might be a conservative).  Most of the big names in libertarian philosophy like Hayek or Mises have been conservative libertarians who, even if they didn't necessarily describe themselves that way, in practice found they had far more in common with the traditional right than the traditional left.

This isn't to say that left libertarians don't exist or shouldn't call themselves libertarians, but they don't really have every much in common with other libertarians.

In practice, the "pot smoking Republican" is a pretty good description of a lot of the people who will call themselves libertarians.  It's a little broad, but it does accurately capture that their departures from conservative orthodoxy are confined to lifestyle issues and generally in areas where conservative orthodoxy doesn't represent the consensus, so defecting is low cost.  Conversely, a lot of these guys will support traditional conservative policies in ways that are deeply anti-libertarian - for example, they are often in favour of enhanced border security or reduced rights for non-citizens, both of which are intensely opposed to the fundamental principles of what libertarianism is supposed to be about, e.g. a small state.  They will sometimes complain about Wall Street or corporate welfare, but are usually short on specifics about how to do something about it, so it's hard to take it seriously.  (Not to mention that in some hypothetical libertarian governance system, Wall Street would flourish)

American libertarians have some particular quirks that other libertarians don't have.  Because reverence for the US constitution is a requirement for everybody engaging with US politics, libertarians are required to claim that the USA is the most libertarian country in the world, and that a true American patriot would be a libertarian.  (Social democrats, of course, are required to make the same claim)  Libertarians saying this are not quite as jarring as social democrats - while it would be wrong to say that the Founding Fathers were libertarians, their 18th century Enlightenment-derived conception of a decentralised state isn't the worst fit for libertarianism.  But that's more of an indictment of the US constitution than it is an endorsement of libertarianism.


----------



## Picklechu (Jun 15, 2015)

Jeb Bush declared his candidacy today. That makes for eleven GOP candidates, with at least four or five more likely to declare.


----------



## Picklechu (Jun 16, 2015)

Donald Trump is now seeking the Republican nomination.


----------



## Yaoi Huntress Earth (Jul 23, 2015)

Picklechu said:


> Donald Trump is now seeking the Republican nomination.


He's just going to make a fool out of himself and it might be interesting, yet frustrating at the same time.

As for Rand Paul, I have my issues with him. I understand that politicians can be a bit shady, but I remember seeing an interview with him where he was talking about how he'd get rid of unnecessary laws and the reporter asked which ones. I thought this was a very good question, but he came off as defensive and not really wanting to answer the question. He said it wasn't a fair question, "would take too long" and he reluctantly and quickly answered with Obamacare and nothing else. It seemed a little shady to me. 

On the lighter side, this opening post on Project A.F.T.E.R.'s 2016 political election thread will give you a good laugh.


----------

