Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Shooter585

2016 USA Presidential Election

Recommended Posts

Now that Hillary Clinton has officially decided to run for president, I thought it might be a good idea to see who you guys would like to see in the White House. I know it's a really long way away, but we already have a good idea of who is running.

 

I'm keeping an open mind, but I'm not going to vote for Elizabeth Warren (too liberal) and Ted Cruz (too conservative).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, the European quadrennial version of "Pick your poison" is on our doorsteps again. :yay:

 

I would like to see a person with a high amount of integrity, oppose injustice and value the US' relationships with other nations. However, since Edward Snowden was forced to leave and Jon Stewart seems to be distancing himself from the spotlight, I generally can not see much of a good option.

 

On a more serious note: I would like to see a democrat in charge. Republican values are absolutely horrifying. :s

Edited by Yuanrang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a more serious note: I would like to see a democrat in charge. Republican values are absolutely horrifying. :s

For the sake of discussion, mind if I ask what's horrifying about their values? I'm not Republican but I am not horrified by them :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary Clinton will likely win the Democratic nomination, but don't count out an exciting Democratic candidate (like Barack Obama in 2008). I also don't think Elizabeth Warren will run either.

 

The Republican nomination is up for grabs, not that it matters of course because I don't think they'll be able to beat the Democrat. The party is too anti-science (I'm assuming that's why Yuanrang dislikes it so much). The only person who has a shot is Jeb Bush due to his relatively moderate stances. My favorite candidate from 2012 was Jon Huntsman, but I don't think he'll run and he definitely would not get the nomination. Overall, I think it may be best for this party to lose this election because it will push them to try and win back a few people they've alienated with their bad ideas.

 

I'm open to voting for anybody but a Clinton or a Bush. Since 1980-present it seems like we've always had either in a high level position of government here and it's time for a change. If Clinton wins the democratic nomination and Bush wins the republican nomination I'll probably laugh and vote Libertarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeb Bush due to his relatively moderate stances
Should I need to say anything? :P

 

The party is too anti-science (I'm assuming that's why Yuanrang dislikes it so much)
Don't know about Yuan, but that's totally me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Hilary Clinton is the next President, I hope she can be as moderate as her husband was. Both parties have been pulling farther from the middle for multiple decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marco Rubio entered the race earlier today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a more serious note: I would like to see a democrat in charge. Republican values are absolutely horrifying. :s

For the sake of discussion, mind if I ask what's horrifying about their values? I'm not Republican but I am not horrified by them :P

because they see stupidity and ignorance as a virtue?

 

11146266_10153159149934463_8379260950851872081_n.jpg?oh=0d0594675883a5c244721667da67f025&oe=55DCE975

 

Translation:

 

Obama meets Castro

Obama: "I still worry a bit about thestate of the democracy"

Castro: "Yeah, once again a Clinton versus a Bush?"

Edited by Egghebrecht

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a nice relevant article summing up all the possible candidates and the possibility of their possible candidacy. http://www.theatlant...t-sheet/384828/

 

I myself find Hillary Clinton to be the least worst option. -.-

Edited by Guitarguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish Jon Huntsman would run again. 2016 is almost certain to be a foreign policy election, and his credentials in that area are outstanding.

 

If Hilary Clinton is the next President, I hope she can be as moderate as her husband was. Both parties have been pulling farther from the middle for multiple decades.

It'd be hilarious if she won but Congress remained full of Republicans so we have gridlock for another 4-8 years.

 

And by hilarious I mean we'd all be fudgeed

 

Edit: Sure is a lot of euphoria in this thread.

Edited by thepope1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish Jon Huntsman would run again. 2016 is almost certain to be a foreign policy election, and his credentials in that area are outstanding.

 

Do you think he would stand a chance? I don't think so to be honest. I think if the Republicans lose this election he might stand a chance in the next one. Like you I wish he would run; he's the only possible candidate that excites me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He'd probably get shot down in the primaries to be honest. He's not far enough out there to appeal to the Republican base.

 

I wish the GOP would just shut up about gay marriage and global warming and tell the religious right to go eat a fat one. Their other positions aren't anywhere near as batshizzle as those two. Fiscal conservatism is fairly popular, but the Democrats can just run on social issues and marginalize Republicans that way.

Edited by thepope1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: Kinda sad when you see the clip at the end. Rather unfortunate this is what American Politics has come to.

Edited by Jj Dynomite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After keeping up with the UK General election, the level of discussion in the US Primaries is just depressing. The Republicans need to take a page from the Conservatives and get over issues like immigration and climate change if they are to win any future elections..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After keeping up with the UK General election, the level of discussion in the US Primaries is just depressing. The Republicans need to take a page from the Conservatives and get over issues like immigration and climate change if they are to win any future elections..

The problem is that so many people don't believe Climate Change and you're never going to convince them otherwise. I don't understand why the Conservatives have acknowledged this and instead tried to promote non-carbon energy by saying we need to stop our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Oil is one of the major reasons why the Middle East is so unstable. If I were a Republican I would go the nuclear route, which unfortunately is not popular among Americans but I believe that the majority of Republicans are for nuclear (while the democrats ironically are generally against it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooter585's plan to make the Republican party more attractive (and probably the country's most popular party):

 

1. Legalize gay marriage nationally and then take credit for doing so

2. Raise the minimum wage to 8-9 dollars an hour and take credit for it

3. Embrace immigration more, say you're the party of the American Dream, people will eat that up

4. Cool it a little with the religious and abortion stuff.

5. Pass a law that guarantees women are paid the same amount as men for the same work-Wouldn't actually change anything but it looks good.

6. Say Global Warming is man made, use as reason to get out of Middle East

7. Become more libertarian.

 

Not going to happen but it wouldn't scare away many conservatives and would attract more moderates. Also would give it a chance with the youth vote. I think there are some Republicans out there that already adhere to this list, but they aren't popular enough nationally. Honestly I don't see the Republican party winning if they don't do the above--strange considering there are way more conservative Americans than liberals.

Edited by Shooter585

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there were some confusion for you, @Shooter585, I will clear up why the Republican party is an absolute horror in my eyes.

 

Personally, I am a Right-Wing voter in Norway, and I support our conservative side here in Norway. It is, however, important for you to realise a few things:

 

Our most conservative party on the Right-wing is far more Left-wing than your Democratic party is. When I am a voter of a Conservative party here in Norway, it is important to recognise the fact that my party is a hell of a lot more liberal in terms of values, than your Democratic Party.

 

With that in mind, the Republican Party supports certain views and values that I find to be medieval, abhorrent and utterly loathesome. The USA greatly suffers from having their politics centred around two major parties with pretty much absolute power between themselves. If you look at both the Democrats and the Republicans, you will find such a massive spectrum of differences and political opinions, that there is bound to be differing opinions. Both parties end up alienating a large amount of supporters each election because you might not vote for one candidate within the party, because you would rather vote for the other candidate sharing your values. It seems to me that there is very little party unity within the Democrats or Republicans unless they are whipped into it by the Party leadership, or there is an integral vote.

That quickly becomes an issue because the Republican party has a lot of dominant sub-groups that by Norwegian standards would be considered either insane, racist or otherwise criminal.

 

Thus I wish the Democrats stay in power. They are conservative (far more than my right-wing party) and have their minds in the right place, while also seemingly living in the present. :P

Edited by Yuanrang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really like comparing the politics of Norway and the USA. You're comparing one of the most liberal countries in the world with perhaps the most conservative Western democracy. Obviously the Republican party is going to look radical to you. To a Republican (or even Democrat) liberal Norwegians probably seem socialist (or radical left). Most American voters do not look at politics like Norwegians, and I don't think anybody accuses the Republicans of being medieval, even the most liberal Americans. My ideas are to make the Republican party more attractive to Americans, not Norwegians.

 

I'm not a Republican if it matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking about your post made on the 13th of April. Your checklist on how to improve the Republican party is all well and good, but to someone who is not an American but rather from Europe, that is like trying to beat a very dead horse. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Embrace immigration more, say you're the party of the American Dream, people will eat that up

 

This. The Republicans can ignore everything else but if they pass comprehensive immigration reform and take credit for it, they'll secure their party's success for a generation. There are scores of disenfranchised, economically/socially conservative immigrants and minority communities that they can win if they just get the stick out of their a**** and fix this immigration mess.

 

I'm not talking about a general amnesty here. It needs to be a fine tooth approach that looks at everyone on a case by case basis. Pass legislation that can make it possible for law abiding, hard-working illegals to become tax paying citizens. It makes economic sense.

Edited by Phoenix Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's been a while since I've posted. Here are my two cents:

 

Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner for the Democratic ticket; her dominance will continue due to her incredible fundraising network - she'll probably outspend every single one of her challengers combined. Although Bernie Sanders is attracting a lot of attention, he doesn't have the ground infrastructure to capitalize on his current popularity. Every other potential challenger (Martin O'Malley, etc.) will be a sacrificial lamb to the Clinton slaughterhouse. More interesting (to me) is the potential VP pick; I'm hoping Julian Castro (the current HUD secretary) gets tapped to be on the ticket. He delivered an excellent keynote address at the 2008 Democratic National Convention and conveniently, he's young and Hispanic. Hillary Clinton is going to need someone young and Hispanic in order to win over the Latino vote (especially if Bush or Rubio is on the ticket).

 

But enough about Clinton; let's look at the Republican field.

 

Ben Carson: Amazing surgeon who's polling surprisingly well for someone with zero political background. He's a conservative darling after his harsh critique of the ACA in front of President Obama. He's just lost four chief advisors, including his campaign chairman and national finance chairman. Without skilled people around him to help navigate this crowded field, Carson risks squandering an early lead in the polls. Even still, I don't see the Republican Party nominating a black guy with no political background.

 

Ted Cruz: A firebrand conservative known for his grandstanding in the Senate and criticism of the Obamacare (fun fact: Ted Cruz voluntarily signed up for Obamacare despite calling it a "trainwreck"). I think he's a top 4 candidate, but the conservative establishment will likely see him as too conservative to win a general election.

 

Carly Fiorina: A former CEO of HP whose only political experience is a failed Senate bid. Nope. No chance. She'll become irrelevant after she doesn't make the cut for the first debate.

 

Lindsey Graham: A hawkish senator from South Carolina, Graham represents conservatism from the George Bush era. I think the fact that he doesn't bring anything exciting means Graham doesn't have too much of a shot. Nevertheless, he's been elected to the Senate three times now, so maybe he'll see some support from the establishment.

 

Mike Huckabee: Former Governor Huckabee is best known for his social conservatism: opposition to abortion, gay marriage, etc. He'll be trying to win over the Evangelical vote and will generally force other, more legitimate candidates to the right. If I remember correctly, he came 2nd in the 2008 Republican primary (aaand a quick Wikipedia check confirms this). Presumably he's going to be better organized and better funded, but in the end, it's not going to matter. The establishment won't want someone so socially conservative, especially considering the growing tide of support for gay marriage.

 

George Pataki: I don't know too much about the guy, and perhaps that's a good enough reason to write him off. He's a New York republican that's pro choice and pro-climate change; that too is a good enough reason to write him off. He doesn't have conservative credentials or name recognition.

 

Rand Paul: One of the most interesting characters in the Republican field, Rand is a staunch libertarian who splits with his fellow conservatives on issues of domestic surveillance and foreign intervention/involvement. He has won the CPAC straw poll 3 years in a row now and is polling in the top 5. He is certainly not an establishment candidate and it will be interesting to see if his opponents try to paint him as "not conservative enough." Ultimately, I don't think he'll get the nomination, but he'll be around till the bitter end.

 

Rick Perry: Three reasons why Perry won't win: He's not a fresh face, he has recently been indicted for abusing his power as a governor, and....uh...I can't remember the third reason.

 

Marco Rubio: Now here's a guy with a very real shot at winning the nomination. Rubio has conservative credentials, a fresh face, and will appeal to an increasingly Hispanic electorate. The 2012 GOP "autopsy" revealed that Obama has won over 70% of the Hispanic vote. If Rubio can present himself as pro-immigration reform and avoid flubs on basic questions about the Iraq War, he could very well win the nomination and even the general election.

 

Rick Santorum: Santorum is like a slimier version of Mike Huckabee; he's about as far right as it gets for social issues. He has compared gay marriage to bestiality, pedophilia, and believes that Griswold v. Connecticut should be overturned. He made shocking progress in the 2012 primary, but I'm going to discount that as a result of "anyone-but-Romney" syndrome that plagued the GOP four years ago. He has no chance of winning a general election, let alone a primary.

 

Jeb Bush: The clear frontrunner, J. Bush has a number of advantages in this field: name recognition, a Hispanic wife, centrist views, and a disgusting amount of cash. He's skirting FEC regulations on individual contributions by not officially declaring his candidacy (which is kind of brilliant). As a result, he has a war chest that can compete in a crowded primary and more importantly, can compete against the Clinton fundraising machine. Nonetheless, if he isn't able to distinguish himself from his less than popular brother, he could fall, leaving a void for the other Floridian with Hispanic credentials (Rubio) to fill.

 

Bobby Jindal: Largely irrelevant. He's polling so low that I'm not going to waste time analyzing him. I will say that he is an incredibly smart guy who says dumb things in order to appeal to the conservative base.

 

Donald Trump: An airhead business magnate who is going to spend his money inflating his already inflated ego. He also won the dubious distinction of "person I would never vote for" in Iowa (58% of likely Republican caucus goers said they would never vote for Trump).

 

Chris Christie: Christie actually looked very strong...a few years ago. Since then, he has been plagued by Bridge-gate, a scandal involving his office abusing power to punish a mayor who wouldn't support him. The stench of corrupt New Jersey politics will likely turn off voters who want someone competitive. Also, I don't think his weight will help his public perception.

 

John Kasich: He has been the Governor of Ohio since 2011. He's going to have a tough time with name recognition. He'll make a splash or two, but I don't see him going very far (if he even runs).

 

Scott Walker: Last but certainly not least, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin. Walker hasn't formally announced either, but everyone knows he is going to run. He sparked quite a storm in his state when he signed a bill that restricted collective bargaining rights. Walker appeals to the conservative base, has charisma, and offers a young face to an aging party. Unfortunately, he is still inexperienced in dealing with increased media attention. For some reason he decided to go to London, where he was asked whether he believed in evolution. Shockingly, he refused to answer the question. If he can convert statewide popularity into national attention, he will become a very serious contender for the Republican throne.

 

 

Personally, I think it's going to be Bush v. Clinton round 2, with Clinton prevailing again. I think that the Bush name carries too much weight for Jeb to overcome in a general election. Plus, who doesn't want to see Bill as First Gentleman (First Man? First Husband?).

 

Edit: Brief change in wording regarding Ted Cruz and small grammatical changes.

Edited by Piggybank30

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's been a while since I've posted. Here are my two cents:

 

Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner for the Democratic ticket; her dominance will continue due to her incredible fundraising network - she'll probably outspend every single one of her challengers combined. Although Bernie Sanders is attracting a lot of attention, he doesn't have the ground infrastructure to capitalize on his current popularity. Every other potential challenger (Martin O'Malley, etc.) will be a sacrificial lamb to the Clinton slaughterhouse. More interesting (to me) is the potential VP pick; I'm hoping Julian Castro (the current HUD secretary) gets tapped to be on the ticket. He delivered an excellent keynote address at the 2008 Democratic National Convention and conveniently, he's young and Hispanic. Hillary Clinton is going to need someone young and Hispanic in order to win over the Latino vote (especially if Bush or Rubio is on the ticket).

 

 

But enough about Clinton; let's look at the Republican field.

Ben Carson: Amazing surgeon who's polling surprisingly well for someone with zero political background. He's a conservative darling after his harsh critique of the ACA in front of President Obama. He's just lost four chief advisors, including his campaign chairman and national finance chairman. Without skilled people around him to help navigate this crowded field, Carson risks squandering an early lead in the polls. Even still, I don't see the Republican Party nominating a black guy with no political background.

 

Ted Cruz: A firebrand conservative known for his grandstanding in the Senate and harsh critique of the ACA. I think he's a top 4 candidate, but the conservative establishment will likely see him as too conservative to win a general election.

 

Carly Fiorina: A former CEO of HP whose only political experience is a failed Senate bid. Nope. No chance. She'll become irrelevant after she doesn't make the cut for the first debate.

 

Lindsey Graham: A hawkish senator from South Carolina, Graham represents conservatism from the George Bush era. I think the fact that he doesn't bring anything exciting means Graham doesn't have too much of a shot. Nevertheless, he's been elected to the Senate three times now, so maybe he'll see some support from the establishment.

 

Mike Huckabee: Former Governor Huckabee is best known for his social conservatism: opposition to abortion, gay marriage, etc. He'll be trying to win over the Evangelical vote and will generally force other, more legitimate candidates to the right. If I remember correctly, he came 2nd in the 2008 Republican primary (aaand a quick Wikipedia check confirms this). Presumably he's going to be better organized and better funded, but in the end, it's not going to matter. The establishment won't want someone so socially conservative, especially considering the growing tide of support for gay marriage.

 

George Pataki: I don't know too much about the guy, and perhaps that's a good enough reason to write him off. He's a New York republican that's pro choice and pro-climate change; that too is a good enough reason to write him off. He doesn't have conservative credentials or name recognition.

 

Rand Paul: One of the most interesting characters in the Republican field, Rand is a staunch libertarian who splits with his fellow conservatives on issues of domestic surveillance and foreign intervention/involvement. He has won the CPAC straw poll 3 years in a row now and is polling in the top 5. He is certainly not an establishment candidate and it will be interesting to see if his opponents try to paint him as "not conservative enough." Ultimately, I don't think he'll get the nomination, but he'll be around till the bitter end.

 

Rick Perry: Three reasons why Perry won't win: He's not a fresh face, he has recently been indicted for abusing his power as a governor, and....uh...I can't remember the third reason.

 

Marco Rubio: Now here's a guy with a very real shot at winning the nomination. Rubio has conservative credentials, a fresh face, and will appeal to an increasingly Hispanic electorate. The 2012 GOP "autopsy" revealed that Obama has won over 70% of the Hispanic vote. If Rubio can present himself as pro-immigration reform and avoid flubs on basic questions about the Iraq War, he could very well win the nomination and even the general election.

 

Rick Santorum: Santorum is like a slimier version of Mike Huckabee; he's about as far right as it gets for social issues. He has compared gay marriage to bestiality, pedophilia, and believes that Griswold v. Connecticut should be overturned. He made shocking progress in the 2012 primary, but I'm going to discount that as a result of "anyone-but-Romney" syndrome that plagued the GOP four years ago. He has no chance of winning a general election, let alone a primary.

 

Jeb Bush: The clear frontrunner, J. Bush has a number of advantages in this field: name recognition, a Hispanic wife, centrist views, and a disgusting amount of cash. He's skirting FEC regulations on individual contributions by not officially declaring his candidacy (which is kind of brilliant). As a result, he has a war chest that can compete in a crowded primary and more importantly, can compete against the Clinton fundraising machine. Nonetheless, if he isn't able to distinguish himself from his less than popular brother, he could fall, leaving a void for the other Floridian with Hispanic credentials (Rubio) to fill.

 

Bobby Jindal: Largely irrelevant. He's polling so low that I'm not going to waste time analyzing him. I will say that he is an incredibly smart guy who says dumb things in order to appeal to the conservative base.

 

Donald Trump: An airhead business magnate who is going to spend his money inflating his already inflated ego. He also won the dubious distinction of "person I would never vote for" in Iowa (58% of likely Republican caucus goers said they would never vote for Trump).

 

Chris Christie: Christie actually looked very strong...a few years ago. Since then, he has been plagued by Bridge-gate, a scandal involving his office abusing power to punish a mayor who wouldn't support him. The stench of corrupt New Jersey politics will likely turn off voters who want someone competitive. Also, I don't think his weight will help is public perception.

 

John Kasich: He has been the Governor of Ohio since 2011. He's going to have a tough time with name recognition. He'll make a splash or two, but I don't see him going very far (if he even runs)

 

Scott Walker: Last but certainly not least, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin. Walker hasn't formally announced either, but everyone knows he is going to run. He sparked quite a storm in his state when he signed a bill that restricted collective bargaining rights. Walker appeals to the conservative base, has charisma, and offers a fresh face to an aging party. Unfortunately, he is still inexperienced in dealing with increased media attention. For some reason he decided to go to London, where he was asked whether he believed in evolution. Shockingly, he refused to answer the question. If he can convert statewide popularity into national attention, he will become a very serious contender for the Republican throne.

 

 

Personally, I think it's going to be Bush v. Clinton round 2, with Clinton prevailing again. I think that the Bush name carries too much weight for Jeb to overcome in a general election. Plus, who doesn't want to see Bill as First Gentleman (First Man? First Husband?).

WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN MAN????????

 

I largely agree with your analysis except I think Rubio will the Republican nomination. Tbh he probably has the best shot for beating Clinton considering his name is not Bush and he's hispanic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN MAN????????

 

I largely agree with your analysis except I think Rubio will the Republican nomination. Tbh he probably has the best shot for beating Clinton considering his name is not Bush and he's hispanic.

 

Sobend! I've been well - how about you? I haven't really visited Sals for a while and the thought sorta popped in my head. I think it will come down to Rubio vs. Jeb. I only think Jeb will win it because he's got oodles of money and so he'll have access to the best strategists, advisors, communications directors, etc. But you're right, the Bush name is going to turn off a lot of people.

 

Do you think I mischaracterized anyone? I think it was a decently accurate analysis.

 

Hope you're having a good summer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.