Because We Have a Problem: 2016 Forcasting List

[GhostWriter16]

I'm really perplexed who Rand's VP would be. Ideally, a minority or woman, since that would crush several democratic talking points (party of old white men, racist, etc). That person could also help campaign to other segments of the population the republicans currently do poorly with. Maybe someone in the mold of a Dr. Ben Carson type.


Link to video.

Don't know much about Carson, so I'll assume the best

Walter Williams might also work.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

This thread has been derailed a few times previously and we've kept it on track, let's not give up too quickly.



I share your skepticism of identity politics. There have been a few competing diagnoses of the Republican failure in 2008 and 2012. One school of thought is that the party has to outreach to one or two more key constituencies to preserve itself, the other is that it just needs a better spokesperson for the same set of ideas. The latter might work for the midterms but not in the general.

Well it can't just be anybody, like say, Rubio. That man has zero substance to him. It would have to be someone like Ben Carson, someone with a great career and story. They would of course have to be qualified as well, Herman Cain simply will not do.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Putting a black candidate on the ticket won't swing votes for the Republicans. Probably the only black Republican in the country that would take a sizable part of the black vote at this point is Powell. And he's not running. None of the others really appeal to black voters. They just alienate the white Republican vote.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Don't know much about Carson, so I'll assume the best

From wiki

Benjamin "Ben" Carson, (born September 18, 1951) is an American neurosurgeon and the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Among other surgical innovations, Carson did pioneering work on the successful separation of conjoined twins joined at the head. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States.

Walter Williams might also work.

I love Dr. Walter Williams and his work in economics, but he's too old. Nearly 80 now.

 

[Antilogic]

Do you consider Rand Paul to be a lunatic reactionary?

The winner of the lunatic reactionary contest is Ted Cruz, by a comfortable margin.

For the record, I don't really necessarily think its going to be Rand Paul, although I certainly hope so. I'm a natural pessimist but he looks like he's got a shot.

Good ol' Nate Silver had an article a month or three ago (posted earlier in one of these 2016 threads) detailing the differences in the Republican and Democratic nomination process. Generally, one of the leaders in the early Republican polls leading up to the election year will become the nominee, while on the Democratic side its usually an unexpected dark horse--the frontrunner always fails except for Al Gore. Some of this might be due to scandals (i.e. Gary Hart, I think, from the 1980s), and also that the Democratic donors and super delegates are more fluid than on the Republican side, and some other more intangible factors about how the primary and caucus voters feel. There's a much stronger next-in-line dynamic for the Republicans than on the Democratic side, and that looks reversed in this election cycle.

So, applied to this year, it bodes well for Paul because he's leading in the early polls, especially in Iowa and maybe New Hampshire depending on the time of the month. Sure, he's not the obvious next-in-line candidate--that would be Santorum or Ryan--but neither has done much to get into the race. We'll see as time goes on.

NH was neck and neck like you say. What's fascinating is the republican love affair with Rubio appears to be over or least dying a slow death.

Christie is gunning to be the Milquetoast moderate. Conventionally wisdom says its a smart strategy being that the last two republican nominees came from the Milquetoast/RINO wing of the party. I think the electorate is rapidly changing though. I don't think someone like Christie could excite enough skeptics, conservatives, libertarians, etc to win the republican nod, let alone the general election. He won't even win his home state of NJ against Hillary. People in the midwest and south surely don't care for his schtick and don't trust him. They won't turn out for him in the numbers to defeat the democrat. Why elect democrat-lite when you can have the real thing?

Specter surely won't be VP since he's dead I only brought them up as good examples of RINOs going rogue and thank you for listing Chaffee, he's another good example.

Can a libertarian put those swing states in play? I think they have a much better shot at doing so than a status quo republican. I believe that under the surface the electorate is waiting to bust out of this malaise. They thought they did that in 2008, but were duped. A good portion might just say, what hell, let's try the libertarian Paul.

Rubio tied his fortunes too heavily to the immigration bill, and the blowback against that particular bill is linked to his name.

I think the Republican electorate is rapidly changing by the social moderates bolting the party (and joining the Democrats). That makes primaries, especially long ones, difficult for moderate candidates. If Romney didn't have to adopt such extreme positions on stuff like immigration and lady parts over the course of that primary, he could have won New Hampshire in the general and maybe enough to take down Obama.

As for putting states in play, I think a libertarian can compete effectively in New Hampshire, but I'm not really sold on the others. New Jersey has one of the strongest Democratic machines in the country and Christie is literally the only potential candidate with a chance of cracking it--even then, I wouldn't put his chances over 50%. Pennsylvania and Maine-02 are a harder reach for Republicans and if the libertarian has ties to the Tea Party wing they won't be able to carry the states (Rand Paul, by straddling the libertarian and tea party factions, will be hurt in these states).

Well it can't just be anybody, like say, Rubio. That man has zero substance to him. It would have to be someone like Ben Carson, someone with a great career and story. They would of course have to be qualified as well, Herman Cain simply will not do.

Maybe, but even then, I think policy positions will trump back story. Could be a bit of projection on my part, though.

 

[Cutlass]

If you don't think that a sizable portion of the Republican base is highly motivated by racism, you don't know what the Republican base is. There is a reason so many Republican candidates and elected officials take positions that blacks and hispanics hate them for.

 

[bhsup]

The misconceptions of others are not our fault. I support deporting illegal immigrants because they broke the law.

Contrary to democratic opinion, the republican party isn't the HEY IT'S THE DARKIES AND BROWNIES, KEEP 'EM OUT party.

 

[Antilogic]

The misconceptions of others are not our fault. I support deporting illegal immigrants because they broke the law.

Contrary to democratic opinion, the republican party isn't the HEY IT'S THE DARKIES AND BROWNIES, KEEP 'EM OUT party.

It might not be yours (and that's a good thing!), but from personal interaction with my old grandparents and old Georgia neighbors (the north side of Atlanta, you know, rich whitey side), it is a significant element of some Republican voters' opinions.

People can reach the same conclusions from different perspectives, which makes party coalitions work but can also lead to some misunderstandings.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

If you don't think that a sizable portion of the Republican base is highly motivated by racism, you don't know what the Republican base is. There is a reason so many Republican candidates and elected officials take positions that blacks and hispanics hate them for.

No, I don't. Whites elected Obama to office, many crossed over from the Republican party to vote for him. Independents turned out in droves for him. He did extremely well with younger white voters (18-30), college-educated white voters, and suburban white voters.

Herman Cain was leading the republican primary at one point, I know because I visited his campaign tent for shits and giggles. They might be simple, but not racist.

Ben Carson, a much more respectable person and potential candidate, was a rock star at CPAC.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

I can't see Rand Paul getting the nomination. It just seems so out of character for the Republicans. They are going to pick someone who panders best to the lunatic reactionary fringe without looking too much like a lunatic reactionary themselves.

The republican party is ever so slowly coming to their senses about some things. This is setting the table for someone with a libertarian bent to come in and clean house. Enter Rand Paul.


Link to video.

 

[Cutlass]

The republican party is ever so slowly coming to their senses about some things. This is setting the table for someone with a libertarian bent to come in and clean house. Enter Rand Paul.


Link to video.

In what manner is a man who gets perfect marks from conservative watchdog groups a libertarian? No way that anyone who gives a crap about liberty would recognize.

 

[Cutlass]

No, I don't. Whites elected Obama to office, many crossed over from the Republican party to vote for him. Independents turned out in droves for him. He did extremely well with younger white voters (18-30), college-educated white voters, and suburban white voters.

Herman Cain was leading the republican primary at one point, I know because I visited his campaign tent for shits and giggles. They might be simple, but not racist.

Ben Carson, a much more respectable person and potential candidate, was a rock star at CPAC.

This post in no way addresses the fact that a sizable part of the Republican base is racist to the core, and that most Republican candidates pander to that as a result.

 

[bhsup]

I simply do not accept that. Yes, obviously there are racist in the GOP, just as there are in the Democratic party. To suggest anything beyond that is just partisan posturing... which hey, that's fine, I do that too, but it doesn't make it true.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

This post in no way addresses the fact that a sizable part of the Republican base is racist to the core, and that most Republican candidates pander to that as a result.

That hasn't been my experience in the party.

 

[Cutlass]

That hasn't been my experience in the party.

Then what's your explanation for the fact that 90%+ of blacks simply won't vote for a Republican? And a growing number of Hispanics the same.

 

[GhostWriter16]

From wiki




I love Dr. Walter Williams and his work in economics, but he's too old. Nearly 80 now.

I more meant his political views, although if Ben Carson is who I'm thinking of, he's a noninterventionist, in which case I'd like him.

The winner of the lunatic reactionary contest is Ted Cruz, by a comfortable margin.

I don't know much about Cruz although I already don't trust him. Some libertarian leaning people like him, but I don't particularly. What about Cruz makes him "Wacky"? The biggest thing I haven't liked him about so far is his hawkish foreign policy leanings. Granted, compared to the Republican Party as a whole he isn't a hawk, but compared to Rand Paul and Mike Lee (The other "liberty" guys in the senate) he is.

Good ol' Nate Silver had an article a month or three ago (posted earlier in one of these 2016 threads) detailing the differences in the Republican and Democratic nomination process. Generally, one of the leaders in the early Republican polls leading up to the election year will become the nominee, while on the Democratic side its usually an unexpected dark horse--the frontrunner always fails except for Al Gore. Some of this might be due to scandals (i.e. Gary Hart, I think, from the 1980s), and also that the Democratic donors and super delegates are more fluid than on the Republican side, and some other more intangible factors about how the primary and caucus voters feel. There's a much stronger next-in-line dynamic for the Republicans than on the Democratic side, and that looks reversed in this election cycle.

So, applied to this year, it bodes well for Paul because he's leading in the early polls, especially in Iowa and maybe New Hampshire depending on the time of the month. Sure, he's not the obvious next-in-line candidate--that would be Santorum or Ryan--but neither has done much to get into the race. We'll see as time goes on.

Paul Ryan is one thing... I don't like him but he's pretty mainstream, with the added advantage of having a lot of people who think he's more conservative than he is. He's ultimately a Romney guy, I think. I can understand that.

But... Santorum?

Honestly, if America is sane, that would be a 538-0 election. I'm not even sure the deep south would unite behind him, they might say "But he's Catholic" or something as an excuse...

Too bad we can't, but I guarantee you RON Paul would do substantially better on the electoral map than Santorum, let alone Rand....

What do you think Santorum's electoral map would look like?

Rubio tied his fortunes too heavily to the immigration bill, and the blowback against that particular bill is linked to his name.

Basically, yes. I'm not that rabidly anti-amnesty but its not really something I particularly want to fight for either. Rubio was clearly much more in favor of that than the GOP is...

I think the Republican electorate is rapidly changing by the social moderates bolting the party (and joining the Democrats). That makes primaries, especially long ones, difficult for moderate candidates. If Romney didn't have to adopt such extreme positions on stuff like immigration and lady parts over the course of that primary, he could have won New Hampshire in the general and maybe enough to take down Obama.

Romney was always pro-choice through and through. That anyone bought that little gambit of his for even a second will always amaze me. Words are one thing, but when it came to actions, Romney was even more radically pro-abortion than Obama was.

As for putting states in play, I think a libertarian can compete effectively in New Hampshire, but I'm not really sold on the others. New Jersey has one of the strongest Democratic machines in the country and Christie is literally the only potential candidate with a chance of cracking it--even then, I wouldn't put his chances over 50%. Pennsylvania and Maine-02 are a harder reach for Republicans and if the libertarian has ties to the Tea Party wing they won't be able to carry the states (Rand Paul, by straddling the libertarian and tea party factions, will be hurt in these states).

You're right that Rand Paul is definitely trying to get both (The libertarians and the Tea Party.) But his is a unique mix of positions that hasn't really been tried before. I don't think you can just throw Rand Paul into the Tea Party. He's not really the same as other Tea Party types.

Are there any states that are blue-leaning primarily because of foreign policy? Any such state could perhaps play into Rand's hands...

The misconceptions of others are not our fault. I support deporting illegal immigrants because they broke the law.

I can understand that, and don't think its racist. It is, however, incompatible with small government because of the huge expense that would be involved.

Contrary to democratic opinion, the republican party isn't the HEY IT'S THE DARKIES AND BROWNIES, KEEP 'EM OUT party.

No, but too many of them (Not talking about you necessarily here) are the "Bomb the Middle East and do everything Israel asks" party...

It might not be yours (and that's a good thing!), but from personal interaction with my old grandparents and old Georgia neighbors (the north side of Atlanta, you know, rich whitey side), it is a significant element of some Republican voters' opinions.

People can reach the same conclusions from different perspectives, which makes party coalitions work but can also lead to some misunderstandings.

Yeah, this is partly true I'm sure.

In what manner is a man who gets perfect marks from conservative watchdog groups a libertarian? No way that anyone who gives a crap about liberty would recognize.

Rand Paul? Yeah, Cryptic, don't water down the libertarian message by trying to put Rand in there. He's clearly distanced himself from the label. Yes, he has libertarian leanings, but he's not a full-blooded libertarian, even to the lowest degree of such, and nobody who wants to have a shot in the GOP primary really can be.

Rand Paul is a consistent conservative. Which is a huge improvement over the status quo.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Then what's your explanation for the fact that 90%+ of blacks simply won't vote for a Republican? And a growing number of Hispanics the same.

Of course you frame the question in such a way that if you dare to suggest the problem might be with them, you're a racist

 

[bhsup]

Hey guys, so as not to derail DT's thread...

Institutional racism in the Democratic and Republican parties - discuss

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

In what manner is a man who gets perfect marks from conservative watchdog groups a libertarian? No way that anyone who gives a crap about liberty would recognize.

I never claimed Deace was a libertarian. He's a well-known, influential, social conservative. My point was that critical thinking about our aggressive foreign policy and the proponents of that policy (McCain, Lindsey Graham) are beginning to be critically examined by conservatives who wouldn't have given that a second thought a year or two ago. Issues that libertarians raised at the time, but were heaped with ridicule by these diehard republicans. For someone like Deace to come out and admit they were wrong is pretty huge.

Here's the follow up to that piece where he says the libertarians were right about numerous issues, not just foreign policy.


Link to video.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

You're right that Rand Paul is definitely trying to get both (The libertarians and the Tea Party.) But his is a unique mix of positions that hasn't really been tried before. I don't think you can just throw Rand Paul into the Tea Party. He's not really the same as other Tea Party types.

It's been tried before and was successful. How do you think Rand got elected or any of the other liberty candidates? When libertarians and tea party both agree to support a certain candidate they destroy their primary opponents and go on to win the general election too.

No, but too many of them (Not talking about you necessarily here) are the "Bomb the Middle East and do everything Israel asks" party...

That has more to do with religious fervor than anything else.

Rand Paul? Yeah, Cryptic, don't water down the libertarian message by trying to put Rand in there. He's clearly distanced himself from the label. Yes, he has libertarian leanings, but he's not a full-blooded libertarian, even to the lowest degree of such, and nobody who wants to have a shot in the GOP primary really can be. Rand Paul is a consistent conservative. Which is a huge improvement over the status quo.

We were referring to Steve Deace. The social conservative radio guy in the video.