Because We Have a Problem: 2016 Forcasting List

[GhostWriter16]

What they do in office is sometimes and even often quite different than what happens on the campaign trail, granted, but consider how the Democratic party was captured by the antiwar movement following the debacle in Vietnam. Consider that the preeminent Democratic front-runner in the 2008 was Hillary Clinton, and she was unseated by a nobody first-termer who vigorously attacked her in the primary debates for voting for the Iraq War.

Consider also the growing libertarian and budget-conscious Tea Party elements in the Republican party, who object to foreign aid on philosophical grounds that we should not be sending our tax dollars to foreign countries and object to foreign wars on similar grounds.

All true stuff. The fact that Obama came into it in 2008 as an antiwar candidate, even though he didn't actually rule as an antiwar President, did come to mind, and there were probably others. My favorite candidate for President in the US ever has mentioned that the candidate with the antiwar rhetoric usually wins.

That said, while I'm not absolutely certain, the only candidate that comes to mind that may have ruled as a dove was Jimmy Carter, and even that only relatively speaking I suspect.

Honestly, I don't understand what the issue is here, and I'd be curious as to your theories on what it is. I saw some poll, in a published book although I forget who the writer was (I was randomly browsing in Books a Million) that mentioned that only like 12% of Americans think that its our job to police the world. And yet what the crap do we do? We police the world. Granted, I don't expect that all of my dreams for this country will just magically come true, but when 88% of the country seems to agree with me on the given issue, why the crap are we STILL not winning?

I actually kinda like Andrew Cuomo, but I don't think I'm as far left as many of our other US Dem posters. I thought his leadership on bringing gay marriage to NY was quite admirable.

And yet he destroyed the second amendment in the state. The things people prioritize in this country are absolutely insane

I am nearly apathetic on SSM these days, it doesn't even bother me that its "legal" (Which really means "Recognized" its been "Legal" everywhere in the country since 2003) here, but to admire a fascist like Cuomo because he supported this completely irrelevant issue is ridiculous.

The fact that people seriously care more about abortion and gay marriage than about the second amendment, foreign policy, economic policy, and the fact that we have the highest incarceration rate in the entire freaking world shows that our country is doomed.

 

[Joecoolyo]

And yet he destroyed the second amendment in the state. The things people prioritize in this country are absolutely insane

State's rights trump the constitution.

 

[ace99]

I've heard noises about that Dem Governor from a flyover state. His name escapes me. Hinkelooper? Hickalopper? Something like that.

 

[Antilogic]

I actually kinda like Andrew Cuomo, but I don't think I'm as far left as many of our other US Dem posters. I thought his leadership on bringing gay marriage to NY was quite admirable.

Well, at least some of those other US posters aren't even Democrats.

I think Elizabeth Warren might be the most radical of all the mentioned semi-realistic candidates. There is no one here for the regular left much less the far left. AFAIK they're all to the right of Obama, which doesn't necessarily mean they would be worse Presidents.

I don't think she has much of a chance to receive the nomination, to be honest. I think her best chance at entering the executive branch is either as a VP candidate to appease the Democratic base if a moderate heads the ticket, or possibly as an appointee to a cabinet-level position.



EDIT - missed these the first time:

All true stuff. The fact that Obama came into it in 2008 as an antiwar candidate, even though he didn't actually rule as an antiwar President, did come to mind, and there were probably others. My favorite candidate for President in the US ever has mentioned that the candidate with the antiwar rhetoric usually wins.

That said, while I'm not absolutely certain, the only candidate that comes to mind that may have ruled as a dove was Jimmy Carter, and even that only relatively speaking I suspect.

Honestly, I don't understand what the issue is here, and I'd be curious as to your theories on what it is. I saw some poll, in a published book although I forget who the writer was (I was randomly browsing in Books a Million) that mentioned that only like 12% of Americans think that its our job to police the world. And yet what the crap do we do? We police the world. Granted, I don't expect that all of my dreams for this country will just magically come true, but when 88% of the country seems to agree with me on the given issue, why the crap are we STILL not winning?

The foreign policy divide in the United States isn't exclusively party-based and has a significant incumbent-challenger element. Once a challenger becomes an incumbent, he suddenly agrees with a lot more of what his predecessor was doing for any number of justifications.

Voters also prioritize their issues differently, and while some may disagree with a candidate's foreign policy they might agree with their position on civil rights or fiscal matters. The art of modern coalition building is in realizing the public usually shifts more slowly on key issues than the news cycle, and thus controlling what the key issue in the election is could yield better chances than sticking with issue polls alone.

I've heard noises about that Dem Governor from a flyover state. His name escapes me. Hinkelooper? Hickalopper? Something like that.

Hickenlooper, I think. I haven't heard as much about his media appearances as some of the other Democratic candidates (he doesn't go on the Sunday shows as often as O'Malley, for instance), but he could be a contender too.

 

[downtown]

If you want a "moderate" Dem, you can find better men and women than Cuomo. My dislike for the man doesn't really stem from policy disagreements, though I don't think getting tough with the unions is much of an accomplishment.

What was particularly appealing to me wasn't just that he came out in favor of SSM, but the way he manipulated the NY legislature to get it done. Quite frankly, I've had enough with idealist-ish Dem pols. I'd like a guy who is a ballbuster and can get an agenda moved through a complicated legislature. Obama, for all that he's good at, does *not* have that skill. For all of Cuomo's personal or perhaps ideological failings, who, this side of Clinton or MAYBE Joe Biden, could battle the inner workings of the Tea Party better?

Other than Hickenlooper (who I like and could be talked into), what other "moderate" type would you have in mind?

And yet he destroyed the second amendment in the state. The things people prioritize in this country are absolutely insane

You can still buy guns in NY State obviously.

For me, the right to marry and be recognized as married by my wife is THE most important thing to me, WAY more important to my family than any possible tax issue, or guns, which as an urban resident, I'd never ever buy and probably won't ever meet anybody who would either. If I was a gay person in love with somebody, I imagine I'd feel the same way.

The way he was able to broker that legislative solution, in addition to being "right" (when it wasn't super politically easy to do so) was just as impressive to me. If you don't know any gay people or have never really been in love or don't have a family, I can understand your confusion...just like I might knowing that a bunch of people with shotguns aren't going to bring down the United Freaking States Army and the tens of thousands of people where I live simply dont give a crap about personal firearms ownership. If I lived in the sticks it'd be different.

Hickenlooper, I think. I haven't heard as much about his media appearances as some of the other Democratic candidates (he doesn't go on the Sunday shows as often as O'Malley, for instance), but he could be a contender too.

I don't know what his level of ambition is, but for what it's worth, he's one of the most popular governors in the entire country, and has established himself as a leader in education and urban planning. I think he'd be a good president.

 

[Antilogic]

I don't know what his level of ambition is, but for what it's worth, he's one of the most popular governors in the entire country, and has established himself as a leader in education and urban planning. I think he'd be a good president.

But he has such a funny name...

I've been trying to find a good site that lists all the morning show guests to count up the numbers each of these guys has been on. Haven't found it at the moment, but I swear by that as a good indicator of whether or not a politician is thinking about a presidential run.

 

[GhostWriter16]

State's rights trump the constitution.

First of all, I never said this, secondly, I never said the US government should do anything about it. I want the US government to get the heck out of the way, and I wish that the residents of New York were willing to overthrow Cuomo by force, but realize tha this isn't going to happen because most residents of New York agree with idiots like Cuomo. I have nothing but shame for my state. I wish Long Island would secede from it.

We






The foreign policy divide in the United States isn't exclusively party-based and has a significant incumbent-challenger element. Once a challenger becomes an incumbent, he suddenly agrees with a lot more of what his predecessor was doing for any number of justifications.

Voters also prioritize their issues differently, and while some may disagree with a candidate's foreign policy they might agree with their position on civil rights or fiscal matters. The art of modern coalition building is in realizing the public usually shifts more slowly on key issues than the news cycle, and thus controlling what the key issue in the election is could yield better chances than sticking with issue polls alone.

I do totally understand this. Obviously Ron and Rand Paul, although more so in the case of Ron than Rand, do not agree with the GOP party line on foreign issues, nor do guys like Amash or Massie, and even guys like Jim Demint are open minded to a less interventionist view point. And then you've got hawkish democrats like Hillary and now Obama that have supported and voted for war.

That's not what I have an issue understanding. What I have an issue with is that some people think that the "Right" to get a gay marriage license is more important than the people who are getting slaughtered by US troops all around the world. Honestly, I think the people that prioritize that way don't really have anything to say worth listening to.

What was particularly appealing to me wasn't just that he came out in favor of SSM, but the way he manipulated the NY legislature to get it done. Quite frankly, I've had enough with idealist-ish Dem pols. I'd like a guy who is a ballbuster and can get an agenda moved through a complicated legislature. Obama, for all that he's good at, does *not* have that skill. For all of Cuomo's personal or perhaps ideological failings, who, this side of Clinton or MAYBE Joe Biden, could battle the inner workings of the Tea Party better?

The Tea Party would never bow before Cuomo. The establishment Republicans probably would, but the Tea Party wouldn't.

You can still buy guns in NY State obviously.

For me, the right to marry and be recognized as married by my wife is THE most important thing to me, WAY more important to my family than any possible tax issue, or guns, which as an urban resident, I'd never ever buy and probably won't ever meet anybody who would either. If I was a gay person in love with somebody, I imagine I'd feel the same way.

The way he was able to broker that legislative solution, in addition to being "right" (when it wasn't super politically easy to do so) was just as impressive to me. If you don't know any gay people or have never really been in love or don't have a family, I can understand your confusion...just like I might knowing that a bunch of people with shotguns aren't going to bring down the United Freaking States Army and the tens of thousands of people where I live simply dont give a crap about personal firearms ownership. If I lived in the sticks it'd be different.

You being recognized as married by your wife and you being recognized as being married by the state have nothing to do with each other. Nothing. Zero.

 

[JollyRoger]

Wait - I thought in the Galternate universe, the 10th trumped the 2nd in regards to what states could do.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Same post I already made, accidental double post. Please delete.

 

[JollyRoger]

Overthrow Cuomo by force? That seems a bit agressive from a lolbertarian standpoint. I thought non-aggression was the starting point.

 

[Antilogic]

That's not what I have an issue understanding. What I have an issue with is that some people think that the "Right" to get a gay marriage license is more important than the people who are getting slaughtered by US troops all around the world. Honestly, I think the people that prioritize that way don't really have anything to say worth listening to.

Not wanting to derail here too much, but I understand the frustration of having your favored issues sidelined by some other issue, whether or not you agree with it. I don't think there is a simple explanation for it.

 

[Cutlass]

Wait - I thought in the Galternate universe, the 10th trumped the 2nd in regards to what states could do.

In the Galtverse what the uberman wants trumps all other considerations. Particularly when they change their minds from what they wanted an hour ago.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Overthrow Cuomo by force? That seems a bit agressive from a lolbertarian standpoint. I thought non-aggression was the starting point.

Non-aggression means not initiating force. Government leaders who take away our rights no longer have any...

Note that I am not advocating anything here, I'm just saying that that's what he deserves. That's it.

Not wanting to derail here too much, but I understand the frustration of having your favored issues sidelined by some other issue, whether or not you agree with it. I don't think there is a simple explanation for it.

Honestly, if interracial marriage, or Christian marriage for that matter, was brought up for debate again I'd be saying the same thing. Its not that I think that gay people have no point whatsoever. I'll admit that my bias is that government should not be involved with defining marriage but if they're going to that they should not change the definition of marriage (I do, however, support some kind of equivalent civil union for gay people if the government is going to be involved in marriage, and I support tax breaks for absolutely anyone for absolutely any reason.) But the reality is that it just doesn't matter that much, worst case scenario is that the government idiotically tries to change the dictionary and I laugh at them. Life goes on.

Its not just "Pet issues" though. I acknowledge that if you disagree with me on the foreign policy issue than that's a completely different issue and we need to discuss that first. But it is absolutely disgusting, in my view, that nearly everyone is all up in arms about the SSM issue yet nobody, even those who agree with me, seems to give a crap about foreign policy. Frankly, someone who cares more about their right to have their marriage recognized by the state than the fact that 100,000 people have been killed in Iraq is just an immoral person and I don't really care much about what they have to say.

I'm not saying that you have to put gay marriage on the backburner so we can talk about soda sizes, or some other relatively trivial issue. I'm talking about the US government killing innocent people. There's really no substantial difference between the Republicans (Minus the Ron Paul wing) and the Democrats (Minus some of the guys on the far left like Kucinich and Barbara Lee) so why should I even care who wins US elections anymore? I just think its disgusting that the American people are willing to vote for someone who thinks killing 100,000 people was justified because they side with them on something trivial like gay marriage recognition.

 

[GhostWriter16]

In the Galtverse what the uberman wants trumps all other considerations. Particularly when they change their minds from what they wanted an hour ago.

If you change that from "an hour" to "Four years" this describes the Democrats now VS in 2008. Anyone who liked Obama in 2008 and still likes him in 2012 is either brainwashed, a hypocrite, or did a near-180 on politics since 2008.

 

[ace99]

 

[Joecoolyo]

First of all, I never said this, secondly, I never said the US government should do anything about it. I want the US government to get the heck out of the way, and I wish that the residents of New York were willing to overthrow Cuomo by force, but realize tha this isn't going to happen because most residents of New York agree with idiots like Cuomo. I have nothing but shame for my state. I wish Long Island would secede from it.

You seem to heavily imply it. Cuomo got the mandate from the voters, he did what they voted him in there to do. I fail to see the issue with this.

I do see a problem with people like you, who, by disagreeing with the majority seek to overthrow it violently. You're not better than any other rebel out there, who imposes an unwanted system of governance on an unwilling populace.

Overthrow Cuomo by force? That seems a bit agressive from a lolbertarian standpoint. I thought non-aggression was the starting point.

Internal strife and war is totally fine because there are no smelly foreigners involved.

 

[Antilogic]

Guyz, I know the thread is called "because we have a problem" but can we avoid the derails we run into in half the other threads on this forum?

 

[illram]

Moderator Action: Yes please. Back on topic.

 

[Antilogic]

The most recent 538 column is particularly suited for bumping this thread.

Monday’s article on the nation’s least popular governors did not include Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, because he is not up for re-election in 2014. (Louisiana’s next gubernatorial election will be in 2015, and Mr. Jindal will not be eligible, having served two consecutive terms.) But recent surveys suggest that Mr. Jindal has become very unpopular in his home state amid a series of battles on fiscal policy. A March poll from Southern Media & Opinion Research put Mr. Jindal’s approval rating at just 38 percent, against 60 percent disapproval. His numbers had been similarly poor in a February survey by Public Policy Polling.

Some national political commentators are treating the news as being self-evidently injurious to Mr. Jindal’s chances of capturing the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. Obviously, Mr. Jindal has plenty of time to turn around his image in Louisiana. But if he doesn’t, would Republicans really consider nominating someone who is so deeply unpopular among his own constituents?

Actually, you don’t have to go back very far to find a precedent for when Republicans did exactly that. Their nominee last year, Mitt Romney, was very unpopular among Massachusetts voters by the time he finished his single term as governor in 2006.

...

As the parties have become more nationalized, demanding greater ideological fealty from their candidates, sitting governors may face an unpleasant choice between working to preserve their standing among their constituents while alienating national party leaders – or pursuing a national agenda at the price of their home-state popularity.

So, does anyone think Jindal will be a front-running candidate in 2016?

 

[JollyRoger]

Non-aggression means not initiating force. Government leaders who take away our rights no longer have any...

Note that I am not advocating anything here, I'm just saying that that's what he deserves. That's it.

You chief complaint seems to be he took away your 2nd Amendment Right - but as a Tenther, you should see that as a restriction on the Federal government and not binding as a restriction on a state governor. Now you may hope that he goes full Jindal and gets guns rights statutorily declaored a fundamental right, but then you will find, as Jindal has to his chagrin, that non-incarcerated felons have the right to possess.