Who will be the next president

[dre]

Mike raises a good point. It would be pretty much impossible for anyone honest to win.

[GostHacked]

Mike raises a good point. It would be pretty much impossible for anyone honest to win.

That's not encouraging. And shows how flawed the system is, at the same time showing how apathetic people are towards this whole failing process.

[Michael Hardner]

She supported the war.

She never supported the war.

Here's the subtlety: She voted for the war, but she never would have initiated it if she were president.

See the difference between a "lie lie" and a "politician lie" ?

You can stomp your feet all you want, but it works.

[Guest American Woman]

That's not encouraging. And shows how flawed the system is, at the same time showing how apathetic people are towards this whole failing process.

As if the voters are all totally pious and never lie. Perhaps the voters are simply realistic and don't expect 'he who is without sin' to be running for office, if such a person could be found.

[Guest American Woman]

Here's the subtlety: She voted for the war, but she never would have initiated it if she were president.

See the difference between a "lie lie" and a "politician lie" ?

You can stomp your feet all you want, but it works.

Yep. A lot of things are all in the interpretation and presentation and context (or lack thereof, as coments are so often presented out of context). Seems to me that's a form of lying?

Edited September 9, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Here's the subtlety: She voted for the war, but she never would have initiated it if she were president.

See the difference between a "lie lie" and a "politician lie" ?

You can stomp your feet all you want, but it works.

So what is the difference between a lie lie and a politician lie?

[dre]

That's not encouraging. And shows how flawed the system is, at the same time showing how apathetic people are towards this whole failing process.

The will of the people is a problem that modern governments have managed to "fix". Americans get to pick between two parties that for the most part do the exact same things.

Iv posted before that the polarization of the electorate around what is in most cases a completely false and irrelevant dichotomy is the greatest feat by political philosophers in history. Ever since the advent of democracy our rulers have loved the political stability and the positive impact it has on the behavior of the populace but they have HATED that its a check on their power, and makes it a hassle to do what they want to do.

Problem solved! Great success!

Edited September 10, 2013 by Charles Anthony
image deleted

[Shady]

Here's the subtlety: She voted for the war, but she never would have initiated it if she were president.See the difference between a "lie lie" and a "politician lie" ?You can stomp your feet all you want, but it works.

Exactly. I've noticed that GH has a big problem applying critical thinking to complex subjects or subjects that involve nuance and or context.

[GostHacked]

Exactly. I've noticed that GH has a big problem applying critical thinking to complex subjects or subjects that involve nuance and or context.

Absolute nonsense.

[Michael Hardner]

In any case, you need a certain amount of objectivity to see these things in a big picture kind of way - or at the very least you must turn yourself into a fringe party crank-case to hate them all equally...

[sharkman]

On the Dem side, Hillary is the one to beat, I'd say. If the economy finally gets hot, the US isn't involved in another war and Obamacare isn't a big issue she would be the favourite. The liberals in the MSM will be in her corner and actively attacking her opponent, who ever that is if their behaviour with Romney is any indicator.

On the Rep side, I think Christie will be the favourite as he's effectively been managing things like Sandy. He masterfully used the Obama visits to his advantage, for example. The press will attack his temper and his body type. It will be interesting to see how long he can keep his cool.

[kimmy]

One guy who used to be talked about as a contender for the Republican nomination in 2016 was Virginia governor Bob McDonnell. But with a major scandal on his hands, he is far more likely to end up in the Big House than the White House. McDonnell is being investigated for accepting lavish gifts from a private firm called Star Scientific. Hopefully clowns like Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann will stay home as well.

-Chris Christie

-Paul Ryan

-Bobby Jindal

-Marco Rubio

-Rick "Santorum" Santorum

-Ted "Undocumented Kenyan Canadian" Cruz

-Rand Paul

-Jeb Bush

I was sure impressed with Chris Christie as a speaker during the Republican National Convention. I doubt his hefty build will hurt him either... it just adds to his "everyman" quality.

I think it is worth pointing out that some Republicans consider Christie to be literally worse than Hitler. There was irate fury from the Breitbart Rimbaugh types when Christie toured the Hurricane Sandy devastation with Obama before the election. They claim he's a traitor, that he deliberately sabotaged Romney so that he could run in 2016, all these things.

It is also worth mentioning that the Tea Partiers are convinced that they reason Romney lost is that he's too moderate, and that they need to nominate a Real Conservative ™ in 2016. The Tea Party is slightly less popular than Ebola among the general public, but they remain a powerful and well-funded group within the Republican party.

-k

[kimmy]

I had thought the demographics would lean to a Democratic victory next time around, too, simply because the Republicans are so full of screwballs and wackos, and so clearly racist towards blacks, Hispanics and other minorities. But after this I think the US will be looking for a strong, decisive leader -- even if he's not especially bright and even if they don't necessarily agree with all of his agenda(see Ronald Reagan after Carter). That would seem to give the Republicans a pretty good shot at taking control of the White House, and quite possibly the Senate as well.

Obama has certainly f'ed it up bigtime, but not in the way you think.

Obama won the election largely because of young voters... voters who traditionally didn't vote much until Obama came along.

Now those voters are looking at the guy they put in the White House, and they are thinking "WTF is this crap? Pro war? Pro surveillance? Nothing done about Wall Street accountability, nothing done about tuition fees... why did we vote for this big fat phony?"

Obama is in danger of convincing one of they keys to his election win to not bother voting in 2014 and 2016, which is bad news for his successor and for Democrat candidates in 2014.

-k

[Shady]

You're partially right regarding Romney kimmy. It's not that conservatives didn't think he wasn't conservative enough, it's that they didn't believe he was actually conservative, and thus, didn't really trust what he was campaigning on. It's one reason why there were a few million voters that voted for McCain in '08, but stayed home in '12.

[kimmy]

Romney actually had about a million more votes than McCain (60,933,500 to 59,948,323).

Also, while the conservative Republicans might not have been fired up about Mitt Romney, they were certainly fired up about defeating Obama.

And, white evangelical Christians-- the core of the conservative vote-- turned up to vote in record numbers in 2012.

So while the Tea Partiers may think they can win by nominating a hardcore conservative, I think it's a dubious claim. It's not really supported by any demographic information.

-k

[Bonam]

Obama has certainly f'ed it up bigtime, but not in the way you think.

Obama won the election largely because of young voters... voters who traditionally didn't vote much until Obama came along.

Now those voters are looking at the guy they put in the White House, and they are thinking "WTF is this crap? Pro war? Pro surveillance? Nothing done about Wall Street accountability, nothing done about tuition fees... why did we vote for this big fat phony?"

Obama is in danger of convincing one of they keys to his election win to not bother voting in 2014 and 2016, which is bad news for his successor and for Democrat candidates in 2014.

-k

Every election has 4 years worth of new young people to swallow the hope and change promises though, new young people that didn't follow politics before then, aren't yet accustomed to the reality that it's all smoke and mirrors.

Also, as much as Obama has failed (whether from the liberal or conservative viewpoint), I think the Republicans are just too far gone to be able to nominate an electable candidate for president. They're not gonna pick Christie or anyone like that, they're gonna pick Nutso McJesusCamp with an agenda of banning the teaching of evolution, following Russia's example on the gays, vaginally probing rape victims, and deciding foreign policy by talking to "god".

[Shady]

Romney actually had about a million more votes than McCain (60,933,500 to 59,948,323).

Also, while the conservative Republicans might not have been fired up about Mitt Romney, they were certainly fired up about defeating Obama.

And, white evangelical Christians-- the core of the conservative vote-- turned up to vote in record numbers in 2012.

-k

Sorry, you're wrong. Yes, Romney got more votes than McCain, but there were still many voters that stayed home rather than vote for Romney. You're also wrong, it's not about nominating a so-called hardcore conservative. Just a conservative that you know believes what they're campaigning on.

[Shady]

Every election has 4 years worth of new young people to swallow the hope and change promises though, new young people that didn't follow politics before then, aren't yet accustomed to the reality that it's all smoke and mirrors.

Also, as much as Obama has failed (whether from the liberal or conservative viewpoint), I think the Republicans are just too far gone to be able to nominate an electable candidate for president. They're not gonna pick Christie or anyone like that, they're gonna pick Nutso McJesusCamp with an agenda of banning the teaching of evolution, following Russia's example on the gays, vaginally probing rape victims, and deciding foreign policy by talking to "god".

LOL, complete and utter nonsense. Go troll somewhere else. You're being absurd.

[Bonam]

LOL, complete and utter nonsense. Go troll somewhere else. You're being absurd.

It's a slight dramatization.

[Smallc]

Very slight, because it isn't far off the mark I don't think.

[sharkman]

Sorry, you're wrong. Yes, Romney got more votes than McCain, but there were still many voters that stayed home rather than vote for Romney. You're also wrong, it's not about nominating a so-called hardcore conservative. Just a conservative that you know believes what they're campaigning on.

Do you think the IRS suppressing conservative organizations' fund raising hurt Romney's vote numbers at all?

[BC_chick]

I was sure impressed with Chris Christie as a speaker during the Republican National Convention. I doubt his hefty build will hurt him either... it just adds to his "everyman" quality.

Chris Christie has lost a lot of weight after getting Lap-Band surgery. I remember an interview a few months ago where he was asked if his weight loss has anything to do with 2016 and he said no, it was for health reasons.

While I'm sure his health played a role, I think he's downplaying his presidential bid. Like many others, I was critical of his behaviour just before election day. I get the whole "I'm governor first" during Hurricane Sandy but it was very odd.

This man has his eye on the prize and he is working steady to get there. I will be very surprised if he doesn't run.

Edited September 10, 2013 by BC_chick

[roy baty]

It's quite simple. Clinton will win in 2016 why? For the exact same reasons Obama won in 2012:

1. Media bias

2. Women's vote

3. Minority vote

4. Youth vote

5. General voter shift to the left

Unless the Reps can produce a center or very close to center candidate, they have no hope in hell against Hillary or any Democrat. The US public has shifted to the left and will continue to do so unless a very serious crisis either nationally or internationally occurs to change that course. Americans voted for 4 more years of a man who already showed poor leadership and incompetence and are reaping the consequences of that decision. I also believe they may just be stupid enough continue to vote Democrat and get more of the same with Hillary. Sad to see a great nation like the US decline so quickly..

Edited September 10, 2013 by roy baty

[Michael Hardner]

It could be a decline, or it could be a return to the big government policies that ruled America during its "glory years" from the 1930s to early 1970s.

History isn't linear, so it's hard to say.

[Argus]

I think it will be republican and someone we don't know yet. That is the only way for them to win is to get rid of all the big names that they have now, and go with someone new.

I disagree. I think Chris Christie is one of the most personable politicians to come along on the federal scene for years. The real problem for the Republicans is he's not a nut job from the far right. The Tea Party and religious right won't like him at all.