View Poll Results: What will the electoral vote count look like?

Voters
106. You may not vote on this poll
  • Clinton Landslide: 350+ EVs

    6 5.66%
  • Clinton strong win: 325-350 EVs

    25 23.58%
  • Clinton solid win: 300-324 EVs

    53 50.00%
  • Clinton close win: 280-299 EVs

    14 13.21%
  • Clinton barely wins: 270-279 EVs

    4 3.77%
  • Tie: 269-269 EVs (also vote here if neither candidate get to 270)

    1 0.94%
  • Trump barely wins: 270-279 EVs

    1 0.94%
  • Trump close win: 280-299 EVs

    2 1.89%
  • Trump solid win: 300-324 EVs

    0 0%
  • Trump strong win: 325+ EVs

    0 0%
Page 2 of 825 FirstFirst 12341252102502 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 16489
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by gurufrisbee View Post
    Jeb is horribly weighed down by the massive failure of his brother's presidency.
    I think that it will be Jeb. Many, many republicans don't believe that Jeb's brother was a massive failure. I don't agree with them, but based on what I read on the interwebs and hear on the radio; a lot of people remember George fondly.

    On a side note, the easiest job in America must be advertisement salesperson for a broadcasting affiliate during an election year. They must wake up and say to themselves, "how much should I increase ad space pricing during primetime today?"

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    I just wish we had a legitimate "Spoiled Ballot" option that would be counted and recognized as a part of our process. At this point I've come to almost despise the two party system we have and would have loved to spoil a ballot for the last two presidential election cycles. Unless someone surprises me on the Republican side and rises up the ladder quickly to receive the nomination (similar to Obama for the Dems in '08), I doubt I'll vote at all. I'm assuming Hillary will easily win the nomination for the Dems.

    My feeling is there is a substantial (although still a minority) group in this country that isn't really pleased with either party, hence the desire to spoil the ballot as a means of protest against the same old, same old. But that may just be my perception.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by nmduke2001 View Post
    On a side note, the easiest job in America must be advertisement salesperson for a broadcasting affiliate during an election year. They must wake up and say to themselves, "how much should I increase ad space pricing during primetime today?"
    My brother has been a TV ad salesman for almost 30 years. I found out that I could make him go ballistic by arguing that TV and radio ought to provide free ad time (carefully balanced) to political candidates. The idea being that the airwaves belong to the public and those lucky enough to be given broadcast licenses should repay that debt ... plus, can you imagine how much better our politicians might behave if they weren't beholden to their big money donors?

    My brother went nuts at the idea ... political advertising is a HUGE, HUGE windfall for broadcast stations.

    PS I know there are some flaws in my plan -- what to do with third-party candidates. Does balancing the advertising favor the incumbents? Those are issues that need to be worked out ... but won't be because of the vast vested interest of the broadcast media.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by hurleyfor3 View Post

    Spoiler alert: Hillary's winning and the Republicans are keeping Congress.
    Regarding Congress -- Republicans will likely keep the House, but the Senate could be in play again. While the Republicans had a favorable map and favorable electoral demographics in 2014 (midterm electorates tend to be older, whiter, and more conservative than presidential election year electorates), those flip in 2016. There are no Democratic incumbents running for re-election in red states, and only two (Michael Bennet of Colorado and Harry Reid of Nevada) running in purple states.

    The Republicans really blew a chance to knock off Reid in 2010 -- he was vulnerable, but they nominated a bad candidate. In 2016, the Republicans may have a stronger candidate if Brian Sandoval runs, but the overall electoral environment should be better for Democrats than it was in 2010 or 2014. To be sure, Reid will be almost 77 when the 2016 election rolls around, and has been in the Senate for more than 30 years, so Nevada voters could decide they want some new blood. But as Reid showed in 2010, he's quite resilient, and it's folly to write him off or underestimate his ability to run a strong campaign, even when it seems like he should be the underdog. The wild card here is the possibility that Reid could decide to retire, but as of today, he's saying that he's running.

    On the other side of the aisle, there's a bunch of Republican incumbents running for re-election in blue or purple states -- Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire, Chuck Grassley in Iowa (though he's probably safe), Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, Mark Kirk in Illinois, Rob Portman in Ohio, Marco Rubio in Florida (and me may not even run for re-election, if he runs for President instead), and Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania. You maybe could include Richard Burr from North Carolina in this list. The bottom line is that the Republicans have to defend more ground on less friendly turf in this electoral cycle.

    The potential silver lining for the Republicans is that they overperformed expectations in the 2014 midterms. While most pre-election analyses projected that the Republicans would end up with around 52 Senate seats, they ended up with 54, so they have a bit more of a cushion. They'd have to suffer a net loss of four seats (five if a Republican wins the presidency) to lose control of the Senate.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Gary View Post
    I just wish we had a legitimate "Spoiled Ballot" option that would be counted and recognized as a part of our process. At this point I've come to almost despise the two party system we have and would have loved to spoil a ballot for the last two presidential election cycles. Unless someone surprises me on the Republican side and rises up the ladder quickly to receive the nomination (similar to Obama for the Dems in '08), I doubt I'll vote at all. I'm assuming Hillary will easily win the nomination for the Dems.

    My feeling is there is a substantial (although still a minority) group in this country that isn't really pleased with either party, hence the desire to spoil the ballot as a means of protest against the same old, same old. But that may just be my perception.
    Just remember - if you don't vote, you don't get to complain.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Winston-Salem
    Quote Originally Posted by DukieInKansas View Post
    Just remember - if you don't vote, you don't get to complain.
    Can I still complain if I vote for myself in the write in section?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by mattman91 View Post
    Can I still complain if I vote for myself in the write in section?
    Vote Sam Adams. Brewer. Patriot. No Peach Pecan beer.

    Hey, that would make a great slogan.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Partly Orlando, FL partly heard Sandpoint, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Vote Sam Adams. Brewer. Patriot. No Peach Pecan beer.

    Hey, that would make a great slogan.
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. But seriously, vote 3rd party. There will never be a legit third party again(they have existed in American history) so long as people are unwilling to vote that way. I've done it several times before, and I guarantee I will again if its Bush vs Clinton round II(no comment about either of them as candidates, but I'd like at least the illusion that we aren't an aristocracy).

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Deslok View Post
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. But seriously, vote 3rd party. There will never be a legit third party again(they have existed in American history) so long as people are unwilling to vote that way. I've done it several times before, and I guarantee I will again if its Bush vs Clinton round II(no comment about either of them as candidates, but I'd like at least the illusion that we aren't an aristocracy).
    There's never going to be a legitimate third party period - our system just isn't set up for it. There have been times when a new second party replaced a no longer viable second party, but that's different.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Winston-Salem
    Quote Originally Posted by Deslok View Post
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. But seriously, vote 3rd party. There will never be a legit third party again(they have existed in American history) so long as people are unwilling to vote that way. I've done it several times before, and I guarantee I will again if its Bush vs Clinton round II(no comment about either of them as candidates, but I'd like at least the illusion that we aren't an aristocracy).
    I only vote third party, when I do vote. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Of course, my definition of evil isn't on par with the majority of the people, so vote (or don't vote) as you please.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by nmduke2001 View Post
    I think that it will be Jeb. Many, many republicans don't believe that Jeb's brother was a massive failure. I don't agree with them, but based on what I read on the interwebs and hear on the radio; a lot of people remember George fondly.
    You are most certainly correct about our collective feelings toward George W. Here is a chart from about a year ago comparing how we felt about Bush when he left office versus a more recent poll (done in mid-2013)



    As you can see, his approval numbers among Republicans are at 85% and Independents only mildly disapprove of him by a 51-45% margin (compared to 71-26% when he left office). I do wonder a bit if those numbers will move as Jeb enters the spotlight and people talk more about and think more about the Bush's presidency. It is also worth noting that Bush was not featured at all on the campaign trail in either the 2012 or 2014 election cycle. I am sure that if the GOP thought he would help them win some extra races, they would have trotted him out, but they didn't.

    -Jason "it will be interesting to see if Jeb uses W or his father very much during the campaign" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  12. #32

    Wow

    1. I can't believe I'm posting on this thread this early. I hate myself for doing so.

    2. It's interesting to me that the moment he started actually talking about running himself, Jeb's favorability numbers decreased. This could be for a number of possible reasons, I suppose: the mainstream media/establishment underestimated how much people still don't like W (despite Jason's post immediately upthread - I guarantee you if people actually start talking about 2000-2008 again those numbers will start falling again, and Jeb will be tested throughout the campaign by having to walk the razor between showing family loyalty and not actually championing his brother); they underestimated people's memories of Jeb when he was in the national spotlight/the Terri Schiavo incident, etc.; natural decrease in excitement as soon as the potentiality becomes reality; etc.

    3. I still think it's Jeb's nomination to lose, however. I could see this campaign season looking a lot like '12 for Republicans, mostly because the interparty dynamics haven't changed despite the midterm success. There's still a lot of insurgency within the party, and a reluctance to support the establishment guy, so there will be a dozen Tea Party favorites who pop up and have a moment before the money overwhelms them, or the sun shining on their extremeness sinks them. And despite that insurgency, there's still the traditional Republican dynamic of you don't get a Presidential nom unless you're seen as next in line for awhile, so you don't come out of nowhere like Obama.

    4. I like Mike Corey's Kasich call, but I think he's more likely the Huntsman of this cycle. His (reluctant, of questionable sincerity) coming around on Medicare expansion/acceptance of the reality of the PPACA world is tantamount to treason for Movement conservatives and Tea Partiers. He doesn't stand a chance in the southern primaries because he's not extreme enough (although he's been in plenty of positions that hurt him with moderates/rile up progressives in a general election), and he doesn't have the monetary support or infrastructure that will be behind Bush or even Christie. He needs to start showing up in Iowa and New Hampshire pronto if he wants to win there and get the early momentum he would need. FWIW, if he were to win the nom, he'd need to flip more than just Ohio and Pennsylvania. He'd need Florida, too, or some combo of less likelies like VA/WI/IA or something. I think his balanced budget amendment concept could play well in Republican primaries, but would leave him wide open to destruction in a general.

    5. There is no current path to 270 for any of Paul, Huckabee, Carson, Perry and I'm sure I'm missing some names. Never gonna happen; they're way too extreme to flip the list of necessary purple states North of the Mason-Dixon. Christie and Rubio have a roadmap, but not the personalities. I think they go nowhere. Christie's going to eat the Ft. Lee traffic jams forever, and the South will despise him. Rubio's lacking the chops and has made too many mistakes in his short time in the spotlight (and I don't mean the way he guzzles water).

    6. Walker would be interesting. He has a number of things going for him, like Koch money and the perception that he can be the guy that bridges the gap between Tea Party and respectability. But he also has a number of things that might hurt him. In a general election his extreme anti-union positions (which, recall, almost got him recalled in Wisconsin) and his open embrace of very conservative policies would likely get Democratic voters out in places like Ohio. I personally think he still lacks the charisma necessary for running a campaign outside the cocoon of Wisconsin, where he won his recall vote in large part because people thought the idea of a recall vote was just impolite and too nasty. He tends to step on his tongue anytime he's actually pressed on anything beyond talking points. That's not to say, however, that an incredibly well-funded campaign couldn't push him through while he adds nothing more than platitudes and somehow manages to not make a fool of himself in debates, of course. I don't know if that's a winning combo for taking the White House back so much as retaining it, however, especially when the overall landscape is likely to be fairly sunny. He could be Michael Dukakis in that respect.

    6. I'm exceptionally bored by the Democratic side, because it's such a fait accompli, and because the heir apparent has been so uncharismatic in the past. I don't expect more this time, although whether Clinton cruises in the general might come down to whether she can actually get people to rally behind her as a personality in a way she's never managed to do before. I think O'Malley runs to burnish his reputation, build himself up for Senate or 2024, or for a VP slot, and because he's drafted by a Democratic establishment that needs someone to play the part of friendly opposition and put Clinton through her paces rather than run unopposed. Webb runs because he actually thinks he has a shot and something to say. Him winning would be a shock and wouldn't necessarily sew up Virginia for Democrats, anyway. I don't think Biden actually throws his hat in the ring.

    7. In more general terms, the question to be asked right now is "How do Republicans make inroads in a national election with the demographics that disfavor them lately?" Who's going to start pulling in Latino, African American, female, or under 30 votes in sufficient numbers to overcome recent demographic change? Until that person (or a platform designed to appeal to those groups regardless of the individual running) emerges, it's really hard for any Republican to get to 270 electoral votes, despite increased tightening in raw national vote percentage totals due to historial polarization and tribalism. These are factors that really hurt Scott Walker, by the way. I think the non-Koch, Inc. GOP establishment thinks their best path is through running an overtly moderate Jeb Bush, relying on the right wing to fall in line while Bush tries to use his biography and geography to move the needle with a couple of those groups who've broken significantly away from the GOP in recent elections.
    Last edited by Mal; 02-11-2015 at 02:17 PM. Reason: typo

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    You are most certainly correct about our collective feelings toward George W. Here is a chart from about a year ago comparing how we felt about Bush when he left office versus a more recent poll (done in mid-2013)



    As you can see, his approval numbers among Republicans are at 85% and Independents only mildly disapprove of him by a 51-45% margin (compared to 71-26% when he left office). I do wonder a bit if those numbers will move as Jeb enters the spotlight and people talk more about and think more about the Bush's presidency. It is also worth noting that Bush was not featured at all on the campaign trail in either the 2012 or 2014 election cycle. I am sure that if the GOP thought he would help them win some extra races, they would have trotted him out, but they didn't.

    -Jason "it will be interesting to see if Jeb uses W or his father very much during the campaign" Evans
    I think this has more to do with the way W has conducted himself since he left office - generally staying out of the limelight, but showing humor and humility when it has shown on him - than it does with any substantive re-evaluation of his Presidency, although perceptions of Obama's performance in office doesn't hurt in that respect either.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    1. I can't believe I'm posting on this thread this early. I hate myself for doing so.
    Great post and analysis. A few comments...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    2. It's interesting to me that the moment he started actually talking about running himself, Jeb's favorability numbers decreased.
    This always happens ("look at that shiny thing I can't have. I want it!" "Ooooh, now I have it. I don't want it so much anymore.") and isn't a cause for concern for Jeb. He still has strong favorables and the best name recognition of any of the GOP contenders.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    5. There is no current path to 270 for any of Paul, Huckabee, Carson, Perry and I'm sure I'm missing some names. Never gonna happen; they're way too extreme to flip the list of necessary purple states North of the Mason-Dixon.
    I agree that you are almost certainly right about this, but Presidential elections almost always come down to the more likable candidate and Hillary has never shown very well in the "I'd like to hang out with her for the evening" category. Plus, (similar to Bush) there are people who just passionately hate her family name. I'm not predicting it, but I don't think it is impossible that a fervent anti-Hillary movement could elect just about anyone from the other side, even a candidate who might otherwise seem too radical to win. If the race is Hillary versus one of these lesser-known candidates, it could just become a referendum on Hillary and the other guy almost would not matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    Christie's going to eat the Ft. Lee traffic jams forever, and the South will despise him.
    I'm guessing you are talking about how Christie would fare in the nomination battle, not the general, right? Because even if the South hated him, it ain;t like Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, and the such are going to vote for Hillary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    6. I'm exceptionally bored by the Democratic side, because it's such a fait accompli, and because the heir apparent has been so uncharismatic in the past. I don't expect more this time, although whether Clinton cruises in the general might come down to whether she can actually get people to rally behind her as a personality in a way she's never managed to do before.
    Remember New Hampshire in 2008? Hillary cried and suddenly her campaign surged. That's why the battle with Obama lasted so long. Before Hillary showed a little personality and feelings, it looked like Barak would wrap it up by the end of January. What's more, by the end of the race, Hillary had a lot of people feeling incredibly passionate about her. Do you recall talk that Hillary delegates were going to walk out or boycott the convention? These people were true believers in a way we seldom see among the Democrats. I have to wonder if we see much more excitement about Hillary this time around as she attempts to become America's first female president. The same way people were attracted to Obama for the possibility of a black president, I think we may see the same thing for Hillary... and I think that excitement may trump her otherwise less-than-charismatic nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    7. In more general terms, the question to be asked right now is "How do Republicans make inroads in a national election with the demographics that disfavor them lately?" Who's going to start pulling in Latino, African American, female, or under 30 votes in sufficient numbers to overcome recent demographic change?
    I'd like to introduce you to Jeb Bush... and his Hispanic wife Columba Garnica Gallo. In case you had not heard, Mr. Bush loooooves the internet and email.

    But seriously, I hear you about the nation's demographics. As has been noted by others, the major reason the GOP controls congress is due to gerrymandering and that their share of the actual congressional vote is much smaller than the number of seats they won. That kind of stuff doesn't really help much in the presidential race when congressional districts play almost no role at all (except in Maine and Nebraska). The minority situation is a real problem for the GOP. The Repubs have doing themselves no favors with their staunch opposition to immigration reform while the Democrats will forever be the party of the first black president ("unless you count Bill Clinton," as many have joked - the Clintons are really loved in the black community). And charts like this, of the US population and where they live, has got to be a major concern for the GOP as it has struggled to make major inroads in the nation's big cities:



    Anyway, great post. Thanks for the conversation.

    -Jason "I still think the election will be closer than some think -- given the chance to vote against Hillary, there won't be a single conservative in the country who will stay home" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    1. I can't believe I'm posting on this thread this early. I hate myself for doing so.

    2. It's interesting to me that the moment he started actually talking about running himself, Jeb's favorability numbers decreased. This could be for a number of possible reasons, I suppose: the mainstream media/establishment underestimated how much people still don't like W (despite Jason's post immediately upthread - I guarantee you if people actually start talking about 2000-2008 again those numbers will start falling again, and Jeb will be tested throughout the campaign by having to walk the razor between showing family loyalty and not actually championing his brother); they underestimated people's memories of Jeb when he was in the national spotlight/the Terri Schiavo incident, etc.; natural decrease in excitement as soon as the potentiality becomes reality; etc.

    3. I still think it's Jeb's nomination to lose, however. I could see this campaign season looking a lot like '12 for Republicans, mostly because the interparty dynamics haven't changed despite the midterm success. There's still a lot of insurgency within the party, and a reluctance to support the establishment guy, so there will be a dozen Tea Party favorites who pop up and have a moment before the money overwhelms them, or the sun shining on their extremeness sinks them. And despite that insurgency, there's still the traditional Republican dynamic of you don't get a Presidential nom unless you're seen as next in line for awhile, so you don't come out of nowhere like Obama.

    4. I like Mike Corey's Kasich call, but I think he's more likely the Huntsman of this cycle. His (reluctant, of questionable sincerity) coming around on Medicare expansion/acceptance of the reality of the PPACA world is tantamount to treason for Movement conservatives and Tea Partiers. He doesn't stand a chance in the southern primaries because he's not extreme enough (although he's been in plenty of positions that hurt him with moderates/rile up progressives in a general election), and he doesn't have the monetary support or infrastructure that will be behind Bush or even Christie. He needs to start showing up in Iowa and New Hampshire pronto if he wants to win there and get the early momentum he would need. FWIW, if he were to win the nom, he'd need to flip more than just Ohio and Pennsylvania. He'd need Florida, too, or some combo of less likelies like VA/WI/IA or something. I think his balanced budget amendment concept could play well in Republican primaries, but would leave him wide open to destruction in a general.

    5. There is no current path to 270 for any of Paul, Huckabee, Carson, Perry and I'm sure I'm missing some names. Never gonna happen; they're way too extreme to flip the list of necessary purple states North of the Mason-Dixon. Christie and Rubio have a roadmap, but not the personalities. I think they go nowhere. Christie's going to eat the Ft. Lee traffic jams forever, and the South will despise him. Rubio's lacking the chops and has made too many mistakes in his short time in the spotlight (and I don't mean the way he guzzles water).

    6. Walker would be interesting. He has a number of things going for him, like Koch money and the perception that he can be the guy that bridges the gap between Tea Party and respectability. But he also has a number of things that might hurt him. In a general election his extreme anti-union positions (which, recall, almost got him recalled in Wisconsin) and his open embrace of very conservative policies would likely get Democratic voters out in places like Ohio. I personally think he still lacks the charisma necessary for running a campaign outside the cocoon of Wisconsin, where he won his recall vote in large part because people thought the idea of a recall vote was just impolite and too nasty. He tends to step on his tongue anytime he's actually pressed on anything beyond talking points. That's not to say, however, that an incredibly well-funded campaign couldn't push him through while he adds nothing more than platitudes and somehow manages to not make a fool of himself in debates, of course. I don't know if that's a winning combo for taking the White House back so much as retaining it, however, especially when the overall landscape is likely to be fairly sunny. He could be Michael Dukakis in that respect.

    6. I'm exceptionally bored by the Democratic side, because it's such a fait accompli, and because the heir apparent has been so uncharismatic in the past. I don't expect more this time, although whether Clinton cruises in the general might come down to whether she can actually get people to rally behind her as a personality in a way she's never managed to do before. I think O'Malley runs to burnish his reputation, build himself up for Senate or 2024, or for a VP slot, and because he's drafted by a Democratic establishment that needs someone to play the part of friendly opposition and put Clinton through her paces rather than run unopposed. Webb runs because he actually thinks he has a shot and something to say. Him winning would be a shock and wouldn't necessarily sew up Virginia for Democrats, anyway. I don't think Biden actually throws his hat in the ring.

    7. In more general terms, the question to be asked right now is "How do Republicans make inroads in a national election with the demographics that disfavor them lately?" Who's going to start pulling in Latino, African American, female, or under 30 votes in sufficient numbers to overcome recent demographic change? Until that person (or a platform designed to appeal to those groups regardless of the individual running) emerges, it's really hard for any Republican to get to 270 electoral votes, despite increased tightening in raw national vote percentage totals due to historial polarization and tribalism. These are factors that really hurt Scott Walker, by the way. I think the non-Koch, Inc. GOP establishment thinks their best path is through running an overtly moderate Jeb Bush, relying on the right wing to fall in line while Bush tries to use his biography and geography to move the needle with a couple of those groups who've broken significantly away from the GOP in recent elections.

    Astute analysis !! I agree almost 100% with your thoughts.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    I could see this campaign season looking a lot like '12 for Republicans, mostly because the interparty dynamics haven't changed despite the midterm success. There's still a lot of insurgency within the party, and a reluctance to support the establishment guy, so there will be a dozen Tea Party favorites who pop up and have a moment before the money overwhelms them, or the sun shining on their extremeness sinks them.
    I largely agree with your analysis, but I just think there is going to be a lot more talent in the republican race this year. I think a lot of big names sat out 2012 simply because they knew Obama would win. Jeb Bush and Scott Walker are I suppose the two early favorites and thus the equivalent of Romney and Perry, but after that, I'd say Christie, Rubio, and Palin are all far superior candidates (as far as chances to win the nomination in a given year, not in my opinion) than whoever you consider third in 2012, and even Huckabee and little Paul are slightly better.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I agree that you are almost certainly right about this, but Presidential elections almost always come down to the more likable candidate and Hillary has never shown very well in the "I'd like to hang out with her for the evening" category. Plus, (similar to Bush) there are people who just passionately hate her family name. I'm not predicting it, but I don't think it is impossible that a fervent anti-Hillary movement could elect just about anyone from the other side, even a candidate who might otherwise seem too radical to win. If the race is Hillary versus one of these lesser-known candidates, it could just become a referendum on Hillary and the other guy almost would not matter.
    Definitely wouldn't foreclose that possibility. On the other hand, if you want this to be a referendum on Hillary, I think the best bet is to find the bland, middle of the road candidate to run against her, not a firebrand with a series of questionable positions. On the third hand, that's what the GOP just did in 2012 and it didn't work. But Democrats wouldn't let you make it a Hillary or Not Hillary race if Not Hillary is Rand Paul. There are already enough angles to attack that guy from for two races. It would be interesting to see how much impact that semi-dormant venom that a lot people have for Clinton from as far back as 1992 would have, as compared to the impact of the inherent historicity of her campaign, too. It's a tough balance to strike to campaign against her on unlikeability (or connection to Bill) without opening yourself up to a backlash of sympathy (or, if you're Jeb, opening yourself up to someone running against George W).

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I'm guessing you are talking about how Christie would fare in the nomination battle, not the general, right?
    Yes, just the nomination. Although were he to win the nom, he'd have legitimate trouble in NC and VA, and I'm guessing a large portion of the Jersey expat population of Florida would not be in his court. For the record, having looked back at my wording, no pun intended when talking about Christie "eating the Ft. Lee traffic jam."


    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I'd like to introduce you to Jeb Bush... and his Hispanic wife Columba Garnica Gallo.
    Totally - that's exactly what I was referring to w/r/t biography (although, obviously, other parts of his biography are not helpful to him in his attempt to woo Democratic voters). And geography, too - hey, a Republican mainstreamer, with a Hispanic wife, from Florida! Strategically, Bush starts with a major head start over any other Republican because of those things. It's virtually impossible to look at the electoral map and think a Republican can win the White House in 2016 without first getting Florida, and Bush has a much better chance of delivering it than anyone on that side of the fence, including Rubio. The horserace coverage would start with "How on Earth can _____ swing Florida red?" with anyone else, and it would be "Can Hillary really win her opponent's home turf, or is this race only about whether Bush can take Ohio?" with Jeb.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Winston-Salem
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    Definitely wouldn't foreclose that possibility. On the other hand, if you want this to be a referendum on Hillary, I think the best bet is to find the bland, middle of the road candidate to run against her, not a firebrand with a series of questionable positions. On the third hand, that's what the GOP just did in 2012 and it didn't work. But Democrats wouldn't let you make it a Hillary or Not Hillary race if Not Hillary is Rand Paul. There are already enough angles to attack that guy from for two races. It would be interesting to see how much impact that semi-dormant venom that a lot people have for Clinton from as far back as 1992 would have, as compared to the impact of the inherent historicity of her campaign, too. It's a tough balance to strike to campaign against her on unlikeability (or connection to Bill) without opening yourself up to a backlash of sympathy (or, if you're Jeb, opening yourself up to someone running against George W).


    Yes, just the nomination. Although were he to win the nom, he'd have legitimate trouble in NC and VA, and I'm guessing a large portion of the Jersey expat population of Florida would not be in his court. For the record, having looked back at my wording, no pun intended when talking about Christie "eating the Ft. Lee traffic jam."




    Totally - that's exactly what I was referring to w/r/t biography (although, obviously, other parts of his biography are not helpful to him in his attempt to woo Democratic voters). And geography, too - hey, a Republican mainstreamer, with a Hispanic wife, from Florida! Strategically, Bush starts with a major head start over any other Republican because of those things. It's virtually impossible to look at the electoral map and think a Republican can win the White House in 2016 without first getting Florida, and Bush has a much better chance of delivering it than anyone on that side of the fence, including Rubio. The horserace coverage would start with "How on Earth can _____ swing Florida red?" with anyone else, and it would be "Can Hillary really win her opponent's home turf, or is this race only about whether Bush can take Ohio?" with Jeb.
    This is why I hate mainstream politics. Everything feels so fake.

    The strong possibility of a Bush vs Clinton.

    Excuse me while I go grab my tinfoil hat.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by mattman91 View Post
    This is why I hate mainstream politics. Everything feels so fake.

    The strong possibility of a Bush vs Clinton.

    Excuse me while I go grab my tinfoil hat.
    Well, look. If you focus on the sillier personality-based aspects of politics, politics as competition, politics as sport - then of course it will feel fake. But there are real consequences to each election. Maybe not for upper middle class dudes (like, well, your average DBR poster), but for many Americans it *really does matter* who wins these elections.

    But we're not supposed to talk about that.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by mattman91 View Post
    Can I still complain if I vote for myself in the write in section?
    Sounds like a plan - but just be warned that others might complain about you for getting a vote.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Vote Sam Adams. Brewer. Patriot. No Peach Pecan beer.

    Hey, that would make a great slogan.
    This an even better idea!

    Quote Originally Posted by Deslok View Post
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. But seriously, vote 3rd party. There will never be a legit third party again(they have existed in American history) so long as people are unwilling to vote that way. I've done it several times before, and I guarantee I will again if its Bush vs Clinton round II(no comment about either of them as candidates, but I'd like at least the illusion that we aren't an aristocracy).

    OB 맥주 (maegju), please. I think that might have been my first beer.

Similar Threads

  1. 2016 Football Recruiting
    By Bob Green in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 770
    Last Post: 01-05-2016, 10:32 AM
  2. Euro 2016
    By gumbomoop in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-19-2014, 06:45 AM
  3. K to Rio in 2016
    By Tripping William in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-27-2013, 05:32 PM
  4. IL Loves the Class of 2016
    By burnspbesq in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-18-2012, 06:16 PM
  5. Presidential Inauguration
    By such in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-26-2008, 11:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •