2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
The parties are realigning ideologically. The Democrats seem to be taking on a lot of the neoconservative (neoliberal) ideas of globalism, militarism and unencumbered free trade.
Honestly Hillary has always looked more like a moderate Republican than a true democrat. That's why Barack beat her in 08 because she had more in common with Bush than him. Get ready for our passive aggressive foreign policy to end and a true war hawk foreign policy to replace it.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
The parties are realigning ideologically. The Democrats seem to be taking on a lot of the neoconservative (neoliberal) ideas of globalism, militarism and unencumbered free trade.
I don't agree with that in fact those things were the biggest drag on Hillary in the primary.

If those things were not still a turn off fora lot of Dems she would be running away with this election by 10 points or more.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
If those things were not still a turn off fora lot of Dems she would be running away with this election by 10 points or more.
Just wait a few days, she will be. Of course if this was Rubio or Cruz, she'd probably be losing by double digits.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Honestly Hillary has always looked more like a moderate Republican than a true democrat. That's why Barack beat her in 08 because she had more in common with Bush than him. Get ready for our passive aggressive foreign policy to end and a true war hawk foreign policy to replace it.
She is very much a Rockefeller Republican but I think her Hawkish tendencies were more about appealing to conservatives when she inevitably ran than any natural tendencies.

I can't see her going against popular opinion to become more hawkish, especially after seeing Obama's approval rating continuing to rise.

But then anything is possible.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
She is very much a Rockefeller Republican but I think her Hawkish tendencies were more about appealing to conservatives when she inevitably ran than any natural tendencies.

I can't see her going against popular opinion to become more hawkish, especially after seeing Obama's approval rating continuing to rise.

But then anything is possible.
What I've heard from Obama and Hillary's interactions during her time as Secretary, Hillary was extremely aggressive, Obama had to tamp down her enthusiasm.

(From the NYT article "How Hillary became a Hawk) http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html
But she was understandably wary of talking about areas in which she and Obama split — namely, on bedrock issues of war and peace, where Clinton’s more activist philosophy had already collided in unpredictable ways with her boss’s instincts toward restraint. She had backed Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s recommendation to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, before endorsing a fallback proposal of 30,000 (Obama went along with that, though he stipulated that the soldiers would begin to pull out again in July 2011, which she viewed as problematic). She supported the Pentagon’s plan to leave behind a residual force of 10,000 to 20,000 American troops in Iraq (Obama balked at this, largely because of his inability to win legal protections from the Iraqis, a failure that was to haunt him when the Islamic State overran much of the country). And she pressed for the United States to funnel arms to the rebels in Syria’s civil war (an idea Obama initially rebuffed before later, halfheartedly, coming around to it).

That fundamental tension between Clinton and the president would continue to be a defining feature of her four-year tenure as secretary of state. In the administration’s first high-level meeting on Russia in February 2009, aides to Obama proposed that the United States make some symbolic concessions to Russia as a gesture of its good will in resetting the relationship. Clinton, the last to speak, brusquely rejected the idea, saying, “I’m not giving up anything for nothing.”
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
I don't agree with that in fact those things were the biggest drag on Hillary in the primary.

If those things were not still a turn off fora lot of Dems she would be running away with this election by 10 points or more.
I didn't say that that's what you and other left-wing voters want. I said that that's where the party is headed.

Look at the Administration's handling of Libya and their stances on Yemen and their open spat with Russia. Hillary isn't in the Administration.

Also look at how the DNC worked hard to get their person elected... Who just happens to be Hillary.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
I didn't say that that's what you and other left-wing voters want. I said that that's where the party is headed.

Look at the Administration's handling of Libya and their stances on Yemen and their open spat with Russia. Hillary isn't in the Administration.

Also look at how the DNC worked hard to get their person elected... Who just happens to be Hillary.
The party looks to be headed to less intervention and less trade, that is why Hillary has had to tack so far left of where she usually is.

If she goes the other way while in office there is no way she makes it through another primary.

And this administration has been extremely hands off so I don't know how that fits into your theory.

And for the record I am a moderate I believe both sides have something meaningful ideology wise to bring to the table.

I think Kasich was the best candidate out of everybody in the election.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
The party looks to be headed to less intervention and less trade, that is why Hillary has had to tack so far left of where she usually is.

If she goes the other way while in office there is no way she makes it through another primary.

And this administration has been extremely hands off so I don't know how that fits into your theory.

And for the record I am a moderate I believe both sides have something meaningful ideology wise to bring to the table.

I think Kasich was the best candidate out of everybody in the election.
To me, "unwilling to commit ground troops" does not equate to hands off. The Administration is out there sticking up for Saudi Arabia after they blatantly targeted a funeral party in Yemen. That sounds a lot like a Bush II move to me. Time will tell if Democratic voters will rise up in the way the Republicans have with Trump, but I think party leadership is going to test its limits.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
The party looks to be headed to less intervention and less trade, that is why Hillary has had to tack so far left of where she usually is.

If she goes the other way while in office there is no way she makes it through another primary.

And this administration has been extremely hands off so I don't know how that fits into your theory.

And for the record I am a moderate I believe both sides have something meaningful ideology wise to bring to the table.

I think Kasich was the best candidate out of everybody in the election.
I doubt anyone challenges Hillary in the next Primary. She had so much political clout that the only real competition she had in the primary was from an independent. Imagine that power magnified by the office of the presidency. Unless Bernie himself tries to resurrect his revolution, I don't see any legitimate democrat candidates opposing her in 2020.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,341
I doubt anyone challenges Hillary in the next Primary. She had so much political clout that the only real competition she had in the primary was from an independent. Imagine that power magnified by the office of the presidency. Unless Bernie himself tries to resurrect his revolution, I don't see any legitimate democrat candidates opposing her in 2020.
If she loses do they trot her out there again?
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
If she loses do they trot her out there again?
The odds of her losing at his point are negligible. Trump is ruined, the RNC has dropped all funding to him, so his campaign is cut off at the knees. Hillary already has over 5 points on him,( Obama had just a .7% advantage over Romney) and 260 electoral votes leaning her way and the full fallout from his recordings hasn't even hit the polls. This is figuring to be a 2008 level blowout.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,341
The odds of her losing at his point are negligible. Trump is ruined, the RNC has dropped all funding to him, so his campaign is cut off at the knees. Hillary already has over 5 points on him,( Obama had just a .7% advantage over Romney) and 260 electoral votes leaning her way and the full fallout from his recordings hasn't even hit the polls. This is figuring to be a 2008 level blowout.
So, none of this answered my question. Didn't like a few weeks ago you think Hilary was doomed?
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
So, none of this answered my question. Didn't like a few weeks ago you think Hilary was doomed?
No, I've been nervous at times, but she's been ahead in the polls this whole season. I have lamented the fact that she's probably the only candidate that could possibly lose to Trump in the general (vise versa is also true.)

To answer the other question, I don't think you'll ever see either party give a failed nominee a second shot again. Even if that wasn't a consideration, Hillary's age puts her towards the end of her window, I think the powers that be would be looking for a newer younger face in 2020.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,341
No, I've been nervous at times, but she's been ahead in the polls this whole season. I have lamented the fact that she's probably the only candidate that could possibly lose to Trump in the general (vise versa is also true.)

To answer the other question, I don't think you'll ever see either party give a failed nominee a second shot again. Even if that wasn't a consideration, Hillary's age puts her towards the end of her window, I think the powers that be would be looking for a newer younger face in 2020.
Conversely I think whoever wins will be trotted back out in 2020. Although I think both sides would wish they could run someone else.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
I think that if Trump loses, he and Roger Ailes and the Breitbart guy running his PR start an alt right cable news network.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,582
Okay, so I admit I have just kinda been watching this election cycle. What is the deal with this Ken Bone dude? Why all of this attention and fuss? What happened?
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
Okay, so I admit I have just kinda been watching this election cycle. What is the deal with this Ken Bone dude? Why all of this attention and fuss? What happened?
Just one of those Twitter things. He asked a question as part of the town hall, and his name is a vague pun, and he's a chubby guy with a mustache and a red sweater.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom