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 3 of 825 FirstFirst 123451353103503 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 16489
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    The Northwest
    I desperately wish we had more than these two parties. Neither comes close to accurately representing my position and yet they are the only two that ever can legitimately have a chance to win.

    I really hope we don't get Jeb or Hilary. I think there is a good chance we won't get Jeb because the Republicans actually have other legitimate options. I'm not thinking the Dems do. I think they both bring so much negativity surrounded with them and their past and their family political history that they will ultimately be very vulnerable.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Quote Originally Posted by gurufrisbee View Post
    I desperately wish we had more than these two parties. Neither comes close to accurately representing my position and yet they are the only two that ever can legitimately have a chance to win.

    I really hope we don't get Jeb or Hilary. I think there is a good chance we won't get Jeb because the Republicans actually have other legitimate options. I'm not thinking the Dems do. I think they both bring so much negativity surrounded with them and their past and their family political history that they will ultimately be very vulnerable.
    Agree that Clinton is a virtual lock, but on the odd chance she is not nominated, it likely means the Dems will put forth someone with no chance of a winning national election (e.g. Warren). There is a strong current of hard Left (Big Government, class warfare, Obama hasn't been progressive enough, etc.) blowing in the party right now. As a disillusioned moderate, I find this just as disconcerting as the Tea Party influence in the GOP these days.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    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? 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.
    This is the most divisive question in the Republican party right now. Conservatives (throw Tea Party folks in with them for the sake of this discussion) believe that running "moderate" is a mistake. The Republican party establishment seems to believe the theory that moderate voters are going to reject a Conservative candidate but will accept a moderate Republican, in enough numbers to more-than-offset the turnout lost by Conservatives not being enthused enough to vote for a moderate Republican, but there's no real proof that this theory makes sense. It was the theory behind nominating McCain and Romney. Both of those guys made Conservatives go "blah", both lost to Obama, and neither managed to get the moderates to break their way. Is that because Obama was a great campaigner (he was), because those guys were both mediocre to bad campaigners (they were), or because moderates simply weren't in a mood to listen to the Republican message (probably a big part of the 2008 results)?

    The Conservative theory, on the other hand, is that it's better to run a candidate who WON'T change message to appeal to demographic groups, but rather will relay the message effectively. This worked for Reagan. The Republican party hasn't nominated a Conservative since Reagan, so there's no recent test of the Conservative theory. There are spot points of information that may give some credence, however. Losing the female vote is killer in a national election, and this is probably the biggest demographic problem for Republicans in recent years. But the 2014 results indicated, to some degree, that women were beginning to prioritize issues like economy and security over pro-life/pro-choice. For example, Udall, in Colorado, got killed for treating women like a one-issue monolith, while Gardner did fine as a pro-life guy who defanged the "he's gonna take your birth control away from you" scare tactic by supporting OTC OCPs. Another demographic that appeared to warm to Republican candidates in 2014 was the young vote, where the lingering high unemployment rate seemed to have gotten them open to Republican economics messaging.

    The African American vote is lost to Republicans for the forseeable future, with the Dem presidential candidate getting something like 95% of the African American vote for decades, whether or not the candidate was named Obama, and Republican attempts to make inroads by arguing that Dem political initiatives have failed the African-American community have not moved the needle. The only question involving the African American vote is turnout, where Obama thrived above and beyond preceding Dem nominees. There's not much the Repubs can do to affect African American turnout except not nominate David Duke. The Hispanic vote isn't totally lost to Republicans, but they need to sort out their party platform on whether to back amnesty, reform legal immigration, enforce existing laws, build walls, or whatever. The Dems have had a very consistent message to the Hispanic vote in recent years, while the Repubs have been schizophrenic and inept (self-deport...really, Mitt?).

    Can the Republicans win a national election with a Conservative candidate who delivers the white male vote, is able to speak to economics and security concerns of women (without the usual gaffes and stupidity that tend to sink Conservative candidates) enough to hold their own in that demographic, and deliver some kind of coherent thought process on immigration reform that Hispanic-Americans find palatable? It's an interesting question. I think they can, but I have no real data to support that hunch, and I don't think anyone else does either.

    FWIW, I think Scott Walker may very well get the Republican nomination. It was interesting in recent polls to see that he was the second favorite candidate among both the "establishment" and "anti-establishment" Repubs in Iowa and New Hampshire. Rubio, I think, will also end up being a very strong candidate. Jeb Bush should be considered the favorite right now, but my hunch is that he's going to get upended by one of the young turks.

    As a guy on the Right side of the political fence, it's my fear that Hillary will get upended. She's a known quantity, with baggage and with poor campaigning skills. I don't see an Obama coming along to take the nomination from her, but I'd fear that in a general election more than I'd fear Hillary.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Can we get Brewster and his millions to start a campaign to Vote None of the Above?
       

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The City of Brotherly Love except when it's cold.
    Quote Originally Posted by davekay1971 View Post
    This is the most divisive question in the Republican party right now. Conservatives (throw Tea Party folks in with them for the sake of this discussion) believe that running "moderate" is a mistake. The Republican party establishment seems to believe the theory that moderate voters are going to reject a Conservative candidate but will accept a moderate Republican, in enough numbers to more-than-offset the turnout lost by Conservatives not being enthused enough to vote for a moderate Republican, but there's no real proof that this theory makes sense. It was the theory behind nominating McCain and Romney. Both of those guys made Conservatives go "blah", both lost to Obama, and neither managed to get the moderates to break their way. Is that because Obama was a great campaigner (he was), because those guys were both mediocre to bad campaigners (they were), or because moderates simply weren't in a mood to listen to the Republican message (probably a big part of the 2008 results)?

    The Conservative theory, on the other hand, is that it's better to run a candidate who WON'T change message to appeal to demographic groups, but rather will relay the message effectively. This worked for Reagan. The Republican party hasn't nominated a Conservative since Reagan, so there's no recent test of the Conservative theory. There are spot points of information that may give some credence, however. Losing the female vote is killer in a national election, and this is probably the biggest demographic problem for Republicans in recent years. But the 2014 results indicated, to some degree, that women were beginning to prioritize issues like economy and security over pro-life/pro-choice. For example, Udall, in Colorado, got killed for treating women like a one-issue monolith, while Gardner did fine as a pro-life guy who defanged the "he's gonna take your birth control away from you" scare tactic by supporting OTC OCPs. Another demographic that appeared to warm to Republican candidates in 2014 was the young vote, where the lingering high unemployment rate seemed to have gotten them open to Republican economics messaging.

    The African American vote is lost to Republicans for the forseeable future, with the Dem presidential candidate getting something like 95% of the African American vote for decades, whether or not the candidate was named Obama, and Republican attempts to make inroads by arguing that Dem political initiatives have failed the African-American community have not moved the needle. The only question involving the African American vote is turnout, where Obama thrived above and beyond preceding Dem nominees. There's not much the Repubs can do to affect African American turnout except not nominate David Duke. The Hispanic vote isn't totally lost to Republicans, but they need to sort out their party platform on whether to back amnesty, reform legal immigration, enforce existing laws, build walls, or whatever. The Dems have had a very consistent message to the Hispanic vote in recent years, while the Repubs have been schizophrenic and inept (self-deport...really, Mitt?).

    Can the Republicans win a national election with a Conservative candidate who delivers the white male vote, is able to speak to economics and security concerns of women (without the usual gaffes and stupidity that tend to sink Conservative candidates) enough to hold their own in that demographic, and deliver some kind of coherent thought process on immigration reform that Hispanic-Americans find palatable? It's an interesting question. I think they can, but I have no real data to support that hunch, and I don't think anyone else does either.

    FWIW, I think Scott Walker may very well get the Republican nomination. It was interesting in recent polls to see that he was the second favorite candidate among both the "establishment" and "anti-establishment" Repubs in Iowa and New Hampshire. Rubio, I think, will also end up being a very strong candidate. Jeb Bush should be considered the favorite right now, but my hunch is that he's going to get upended by one of the young turks.
    I think you've pretty much summed it up but you sort of answered your own question earlier in the post, and the answer is different than your hunch. Romney won the white vote in 2012 by the same margin Reagan did in the 1980 landslide. Whites were almost 90% of vote in 1980, but less than 75% in 2012. The country has changed enormously since Reagan was elected. Would Reagen even be considered a conservative by the current republican electorate?

    In the last 4 presidential elections, non whites have made up between 9% and 12% of all republican voters while growing from 30% to 44% of democratic voters. These data suggest it is unlikely that a more conservative candidate can attract a more meaningful amount of this growing demographic.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    The Northwest
    Quote Originally Posted by 77devil View Post
    I think you've pretty much summed it up but you sort of answered your own question earlier in the post, and the answer is different than your hunch. Romney won the white vote in 2012 by the same margin Reagan did in the 1980 landslide. Whites were almost 90% of vote in 1980, but less than 75% in 2012. The country has changed enormously since Reagan was elected. Would Reagen even be considered a conservative by the current republican electorate?

    In the last 4 presidential elections, non whites have made up between 9% and 12% of all republican voters while growing from 30% to 44% of democratic voters. These data suggest it is unlikely that a more conservative candidate can attract a more meaningful amount of this growing demographic.
    I feel like this is a lot of why I still see a strong chance for Marco Rubio. For sadly large chunk of the population that simply wants to vote for someone who fits the same profile as themself, the GOP isn't getting the African Americans after Obama and isn't getting the women if it's Hillary. But the Latino vote could make themselves very significant.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    In reply to the excellent posts by devil77 and guru...

    Guru: I agree there is certainly a degree to which Americans vote for, or against, candidates who look (or don't look) like them, but I think it's relatively small compared to other factors, and I'm not sure that it mattered too much with Obama. While the voter turnout among African Americans was better for him than it was for the previous two Dem nominees, the percentage of African American votes he got didn't differ much from previous presidential elections. There was an understandable enthusiasm in having the first African American president that drove the higher turnout. That might not be replicated with a female candidate driving higher turnout in women, or even a Hispanic candidate driving a higher turnout in Hispanic Americans. The African American experience in US history is unique, and therefore the reaction to having "one of our own" as a candidate may not be the same in other demographics. In addition, Obama didn't fare significantly worse with the white vote than did either of the preceding two candidates, so there wasn't much of a measurable impact of people voting against him because he didn't look like them.

    Related to this, and responding also to devil77 (and thank you devil for your reply, which I also largely agreed with), there's a danger in political parties playing to group identities. The common logic now is that Republicans in general, and Conservatives especially, have an increasing demographic problem. But why should they assume that these groups are monolithic and their voting patterns locked in? People don't vote Democrat because they're women. The Democratic platform has appealed to women more in recent years because of what's in it. That leaves Republicans options: move their platform closer to the Democratic platform; alter their own platform in a way that still distinguishes them from Democrats, or keep the platform and try to make the argument in a better, more coherent, and more appealing way. The issue that most pundits say hurts Republicans with women most, for example, is reproductive rights. Okay, so do Republicans put forward a pro-choice candidate (or a modified pro-choice...ie: supporting choice up to 20 weeks but still against late term abortion, or something to that effect)? Or do they stick with their current party platform and try to emphasize their points better (a more coherent and accessible discussion of intra-uterine development, for example)? Or do Republicans simply say, "hey, we know life-at-conception is never going to become a federal law (most Republicans don't agree with it anyway), this is more of a state level issue anyway, we may try to chip away at things like late-term abortion or pain-capable child abortion, but we're really going to put all of that on the back burner and emphasize how Republican policies are going to help you, mom, make a better income, keep more of your income away from the Federal Government, get your kids in better schools, and keep you and your family safe at home, work, and school"?

    I'm NOT trying to start a discussion on any particular policy issue, particularly something as divisive as reproductive rights, so please view the above paragraph entirely in the following context: My point is solely that Republicans would be mistaken to simply look at demographic blocks as set in stone, or voters within those blocks as single-issue creatures where the only way to get their vote is change platform to satisfy that issue. Are reproductive rights important to women? Absolutely. So are economics, security, etc. Is immigration reform/amnesty important to Hispanic American voters? Yep, but so are other issues.

    Even with African Americans, Republicans need to get and keep a dialogue going. 50 years ago the Democrat Party flipped it's perception in the African American community, erasing a long and ugly history of supporting racist policies by focusing it's conversation instead on what government could do to help African Americans. There's an argument that Republicans can make (and many are trying to make) that the Democrat Party's initiatives over the last 5 decades have hurt African Americans more than they have helped. Republicans have a long way to go to overcome perceptions, to overcome their own mistakes, to expunge from the party the idiots who, every time they speak, validate the worst fears of African Americans. But for the Republican Party to say, well, these people, by the virtue of their skin color, will always vote Democrat, would be simplistic and racist, and would be ultimately self-defeating.

    I also like Rubio's chances if he gets the Republican nomination, only partially because he probably would have a better chance of making a connection with Hispanic voters. I actually admire, and think it will ultimately help him, that he worked in a bipartisan manner on immigration reform. In addition, he has a great personal story to tell, he's articulate, and he elucidates Conservative principles in a way that is generally positive. He's not a perfect candidate, but then again, neither is any candidate for either party right now.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The City of Brotherly Love except when it's cold.
    Quote Originally Posted by davekay1971 View Post
    In reply to the excellent posts by devil77 and guru...

    Guru: I agree there is certainly a degree to which Americans vote for, or against, candidates who look (or don't look) like them, but I think it's relatively small compared to other factors, and I'm not sure that it mattered too much with Obama. While the voter turnout among African Americans was better for him than it was for the previous two Dem nominees, the percentage of African American votes he got didn't differ much from previous presidential elections. There was an understandable enthusiasm in having the first African American president that drove the higher turnout. That might not be replicated with a female candidate driving higher turnout in women, or even a Hispanic candidate driving a higher turnout in Hispanic Americans. The African American experience in US history is unique, and therefore the reaction to having "one of our own" as a candidate may not be the same in other demographics. In addition, Obama didn't fare significantly worse with the white vote than did either of the preceding two candidates, so there wasn't much of a measurable impact of people voting against him because he didn't look like them.

    Related to this, and responding also to devil77 (and thank you devil for your reply, which I also largely agreed with), there's a danger in political parties playing to group identities. The common logic now is that Republicans in general, and Conservatives especially, have an increasing demographic problem. But why should they assume that these groups are monolithic and their voting patterns locked in? People don't vote Democrat because they're women. The Democratic platform has appealed to women more in recent years because of what's in it. That leaves Republicans options: move their platform closer to the Democratic platform; alter their own platform in a way that still distinguishes them from Democrats, or keep the platform and try to make the argument in a better, more coherent, and more appealing way. The issue that most pundits say hurts Republicans with women most, for example, is reproductive rights. Okay, so do Republicans put forward a pro-choice candidate (or a modified pro-choice...ie: supporting choice up to 20 weeks but still against late term abortion, or something to that effect)? Or do they stick with their current party platform and try to emphasize their points better (a more coherent and accessible discussion of intra-uterine development, for example)? Or do Republicans simply say, "hey, we know life-at-conception is never going to become a federal law (most Republicans don't agree with it anyway), this is more of a state level issue anyway, we may try to chip away at things like late-term abortion or pain-capable child abortion, but we're really going to put all of that on the back burner and emphasize how Republican policies are going to help you, mom, make a better income, keep more of your income away from the Federal Government, get your kids in better schools, and keep you and your family safe at home, work, and school"?

    I'm NOT trying to start a discussion on any particular policy issue, particularly something as divisive as reproductive rights, so please view the above paragraph entirely in the following context: My point is solely that Republicans would be mistaken to simply look at demographic blocks as set in stone, or voters within those blocks as single-issue creatures where the only way to get their vote is change platform to satisfy that issue. Are reproductive rights important to women? Absolutely. So are economics, security, etc. Is immigration reform/amnesty important to Hispanic American voters? Yep, but so are other issues.

    Even with African Americans, Republicans need to get and keep a dialogue going. 50 years ago the Democrat Party flipped it's perception in the African American community, erasing a long and ugly history of supporting racist policies by focusing it's conversation instead on what government could do to help African Americans. There's an argument that Republicans can make (and many are trying to make) that the Democrat Party's initiatives over the last 5 decades have hurt African Americans more than they have helped. Republicans have a long way to go to overcome perceptions, to overcome their own mistakes, to expunge from the party the idiots who, every time they speak, validate the worst fears of African Americans. But for the Republican Party to say, well, these people, by the virtue of their skin color, will always vote Democrat, would be simplistic and racist, and would be ultimately self-defeating.

    I also like Rubio's chances if he gets the Republican nomination, only partially because he probably would have a better chance of making a connection with Hispanic voters. I actually admire, and think it will ultimately help him, that he worked in a bipartisan manner on immigration reform. In addition, he has a great personal story to tell, he's articulate, and he elucidates Conservative principles in a way that is generally positive. He's not a perfect candidate, but then again, neither is any candidate for either party right now.
    I agree that it's the issues and not a monolithic attachment of any group to either party. And the growing block of voters who identify themselves as independent supports the notion that party is much less important today than policy. Remember two famous, or infamous, moments of the republican debates in 2012 when all the candidates by a show of hands would not agree to a 10 to 1 deal of spending cuts to tax increases. And Romney declaring that the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants must self deport. Right of center independents and moderate republicans shook their heads in disbelief.

    I do not think the republicans will nominate Rubio or any other candidate who hasn't had executive, ie., governorship experience. They have battered President Obama repeatedly on this issue. That puts Bush, Christie, Walker, and Kasich in no particular order at the top of the list. Jindal has no chance if he decides to run, which I doubt, and Huckabee's positions on key issues such as immigration and gay rights are too extreme to attract a republican big tent in my opinion.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    The Northwest
    I have no doubt that I am very cynical on such matters but sadly the more I talk to people and read polls and see news reports they all keep pointing to me that the general voting population is less and less educated about the issues and more and more influenced by things they can process is under 30 seconds. Attack commercials, bumper stickers, tag lines, and sadly, very basic profile. They can't tell you what state Al Gore is from, but they know he claimed to invent the internet. They can't tell you what John Kerry did before he ran for president, but they remember he was a flip flopper. They can't tell you what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts, but they remember he was against 47% of something. And remember, it's not just African Americans who were excited to vote for Obama. There were a lot of non African Americans who were excited for the opportunity to vote for an African American. Yes, this alone won't be enough for a party to nominate someone. The Democrats won't put Julia Roberts on the ballot just because she's a woman and the Republicans won't put Alex Rodriguez on there just because he's a Latino, but those factors won't be ignored either.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Could a Jim Webb candidacy spice up the narrative? He has a reputation for valuing Main Street over Wall Street and he dislikes America's interventionism in the Middle East.

    http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/201...-in-2016/?_r=0

    “Is it possible that our next President could actually lay out a vision for the country, and create an environment where leaders from both parties and from all philosophies would feel compelled to work together for the good of the country, despite all of the money and political pressure that now demands they disagree? I believe it is possible.”
    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...ikely-run-2016

    "The most important thing to understand about Webb is he's driven by anger and resentment...the reason Webb is now pondering a presidential run is anger - this time over the Obama administration's new military campaign in Iraq and Syria and the Democratic Party's hawkish turn."
    Webb is a long shot at best, but if he actually runs, perhaps his candidacy will force other candidates to discuss issues Webb views as important to the nation's future.
    Bob Green

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by davekay1971 View Post
    In reply to the excellent posts by devil77 and guru...
    I also like Rubio's chances if he gets the Republican nomination, only partially because he probably would have a better chance of making a connection with Hispanic voters. I actually admire, and think it will ultimately help him, that he worked in a bipartisan manner on immigration reform. In addition, he has a great personal story to tell, he's articulate, and he elucidates Conservative principles in a way that is generally positive. He's not a perfect candidate, but then again, neither is any candidate for either party right now.
    I said ten years ago on TDD that the path forward for the party of Lincoln was to embrace the Hispanic vote. After Rubio's 2012 speech, I remember a *lot* of Democrats saying that he should be the future of the GOP. He will deliver Florida.

    Jeb is cancerous. The only other candidate that could break traditional party demographics is Paul, but he caters too much to the antis to be taken seriously.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The City of Brotherly Love except when it's cold.
    Former 3 term New York Governor George Pataki said on Squawk Box this morning that he has decided to jump into the fray if there is enough money and interest.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Future vs. Past. This is kind of an interesting poll, since to me the future can represent either an unknown, expected dissatisfaction, or hopeful optimism, and the past can represent either a perceived dissatisfaction or a longing for "the way things were". Depending on who you ask, a past political environment was either a nightmare or a golden era.
    Asked in a new CNN/ORC poll whether seven possible candidates better represent the future or the past, 50% said Clinton evoked the future, more than said so of any other candidate. By contrast, Joe Biden and Jeb Bush, whose names have been in the political conversation even longer than Clinton's, were each seen as representing the past by 64% of Americans.
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/18/politi...ush/index.html
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    Future vs. Past. This is kind of an interesting poll, since to me the future can represent either an unknown, expected dissatisfaction, or hopeful optimism, and the past can represent either a perceived dissatisfaction or a longing for "the way things were". Depending on who you ask, a past political environment was either a nightmare or a golden era.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/18/politi...ush/index.html
    I find the results surprising given how long Clinton has been in the political picture. I wonder if the Dem messaging about "it's time for a female president" has been effective, and she gets some future-cred as potentially the first female president? It certainly means that Republican messaging trying to tie Clinton to Obama, trying to make her age an issue (a breathtakingly stupid political move, IMHO...Hillary is without question young enough and healthy enough for the job...and Repub attempts to make it an issue are only likely to make them seem nasty and negative), and trying to paint her as a fossil from the 90s, are not working.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by davekay1971 View Post
    I find the results surprising given how long Clinton has been in the political picture. I wonder if the Dem messaging about "it's time for a female president" has been effective, and she gets some future-cred as potentially the first female president?
    I think that's probably the biggest part of it. Or, people may think a female president is no doubt part of "the future" in a vague, general sense; it may be her, it may not be her, but it's coming and she's the symbol of it at the moment.

    W/r/t McCain, it seems obvious that being called "the past" is based primarily on his age (78) and the fact he had a run at the White House two cycles ago now and has been in the Senate forever. Re: Bush, given that he's the odds on favorite to get the GOP nomination, he seems to fall into the future category to me at least. I'd bet he polled otherwise just because he's been dormant for so long. People think of him as part of the '90's and early '00's, whereas Clinton was a Senator, White House hopeful, then Sec'y of State until very recently. Her name's been out there forever, but she's never completely gone away the way Jeb did. Somewhat curious that Biden's considered the past - I suspect a lot of people figure he's older than he is (he's 72, I think), and I guess he's taken shots at President and not made it, so his VP position feels more like a valedictory than a holding pattern before he moves on to something bigger.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by davekay1971 View Post
    I wonder if the Dem messaging about "it's time for a female president" has been effective
    Maybe I'm just not paying attention enough, but which Democrats have been messaging "it's time for a female president"?

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Hillary tried to play the "inevitability card" eight years ago but it didn't work. Not sure who is strong enough to challenge her, but I imagine there is a "pro-Hillary/please-not-Hillary" split of some proportion in the party. Sort of like Romney four years ago, when flavors of the week became the "Romney Alternative Choice" before getting hauled down.

    Is there really anyone out there to challenge her in the party? I just don't see it in the names that have floated so far. Is there, realistically, anyone who can fund-raise strongly enough to mount a serious challenge?

    And if HRC is all but inevitable, the GOP has the usual dilemma -- nominate someone who holds the core values (i.e. loved by the base) or a pragmatist that has broader national appeal. This dynamic has been fascinating in the GOP for years. The pragmatists have won out almost every cycle, but it has not carried the day the last two cycles. And, when the Tea Party candidates have won local/state primaries, they have lost in all but the safest of districts. So, which does the GOP want -- Goldwater, or Rockefeller?

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Secretary Clinton should hope that someone in the Democratic Party steps up to challenge her. It is not a positive to go unchallenged until the general election.

    There are no serious contenders at this point, and no one with the profile or the prospects at this point. I suspect there are a handful biding their time, and there will be some interesting plot lines that arise...but nothing serious will be able to knock off Secretary Clinton, barring self-implosion.

    Senator Rubio hasn't really distinguished himself in the Senate, nor have any of the other Republicans in Washington. I firmly believe the GOP should look to one of its governors. They will then be able to contrast a governor's litany of accomplishments and management experience against that of Secretary Clinton, against whom the meme has already emerged: that she accomplished nothing noteworthy while in the president's cabinet, that she accomplished nothing noteworthy while in the U.S. Senate.

    The more the GOP draws contrasts, the more successful it will be, IMO.

    As a Democrat, I'm not hoping for that. But that's what I would do if I had the reigns in the GOP.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Corey View Post
    Secretary Clinton should hope that someone in the Democratic Party steps up to challenge her. It is not a positive to go unchallenged until the general election.
    I completely agree with that line of thinking. She needs to be able to show to the country why she is different than Obama, and an unchallenged primary season will only leave her with a few short months to make that distinction. A hard fought primary gives her (or whomever the nominee will be) a well defined platform by the time she makes that acceptance speech. Going into July with a crowd behind you thinking "um...I voted for her because there was nobody else to consider" sets up a weak presidential race. The Republican nominee is going to be well honed. Even if it IS Jeb, he's got a wall of opponents to make his way through first.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    I completely agree with that line of thinking. She needs to be able to show to the country why she is different than Obama, and an unchallenged primary season will only leave her with a few short months to make that distinction.
    Depends on how the economy trends during the next 12-18 months I'm not at all sure that that's true.

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
  •