The 2016 presidential race (former: The race to the 2016 presidential race)

[Lord Thesaurian]

Without taxation, how does he believe he'll be able to fund that massive military Republican candidates get all hot and steamy about having?

The primary function of the IRS is to enforce the income tax. This enforcement mechanism has given the federal government an extra means of surveillance, auditing and prosecution which, whether or not originally intended when the organization was established, can truly become a menace if put in the wrong hands (ex. political activism or censorship). If one were to abandon the income tax in favor of some other form of taxation such as a per-unit or per-quantity tax of some kind, the IRS would cease to be relevant. Such an idea may or may not be realistic, but it's a fairly popular one in certain circles and several Tea Party candidates latched on to these sorts of concepts as part of their anti-government, anti-taxation mantra.

[chilon]

Why are we talking like Ted Cruz is a serious contender. Sure he is the first to announce, but the guy has no chance even in the primaries he is Rick Perry/Herman Cain etc. Insane rhetoric bought and paid for by the Koch brothers in order to drag the party further to the right, but they are still going to run Bush or another (more) mainstream candidate. I doubt Cruz even makes it out of Iowa.

Clinton could lose to someone like Bush, even a GW Bush, but not Cruz even if by some miracle he got the nomination. Nothing would galvanize democrats and moderates more than a nutjob like this and the GOP/donors know that too.

Ted Cruz would lose a general election to Kermit the Frog. The man is about as extremist and unelectable as it gets. I don't think I have ever heard someone repeatedly say more idiotic things as a Senator than Rafael Eduardo Cruz (his real full name). Scary thing is if anyone panders to him in the primaries. Most Republicans I know even think Cruz is just a complete idiot.


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...sliked-to-win/

[Dr Zoidberg]

What I don't get (as an outsider looking in), is that there are clearly a lot of intelligence, sensible, centre-right people both in the GOP and outside who would identify with many of its ideals. But yet the party feels it needs to pander to the extreme right fringes of its support base during primaries; alienating many swing and independent voters along the way, and ending up with a candidate who has no chance of winning in the general.

[Condottiere 40K]

11066
It's a big tent, which tends to occur if national politics devolves into only a two viable party system.

But you know the story about big fish swallowing small fish. The GOP tried to do that with the teabaggers, but it turned out that having swallowed them alive, they've been eating away at their internal organs.

[tarvu]

What I don't get (as an outsider looking in), is that there are clearly a lot of intelligence, sensible, centre-right people both in the GOP and outside who would identify with many of its ideals. But yet the party feels it needs to pander to the extreme right fringes of its support base during primaries; alienating many swing and independent voters along the way, and ending up with a candidate who has no chance of winning in the general.

I agree that the party has become much more extreme, but Bush wasn't exactly the perfect centrist and did plenty of pandering himself. He was more establishment, Romney was establishment, and Jeb (who is the likely nominee) is establishment but they all pander too. Reagan pandered it just isn't new for them to be dragged to the right especially during primaries (but honestly during the general cycle as well).

The difference for moderates I suppose is whether they say to themselves "Oh he is just saying this crap to appeal to the crazies" as was the case for Romney, McCain and GW Bush or if they think he is a true believer like Cruz/Palin. I don't know if it hurt any of the actual general candidates, I think they lost because their opponents were more appealing (or less in the case of GW) and it is a two choice system.

The only reason the Democrats don't have to appeal as strongly to progressives is because it is a party of wimps who are afraid of their shadow, they could absolutely be advocating for universal healthcare and other progressive ideas right now and it wouldn't hurt them anymore than the pandering the Republicans do to their extremist base. Republicans also aren't just pandering to teabaggers, mostly they are appealing to big donors when they say insane crap like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson. These donors also probably know that Cruz has no chance, and such insane ideas they promote aren't likely to happen anytime soon but by putting it out there they move the country's tolerance for such ideas further to the right.

It isn't a bad strategy for Republicans, it is a brilliant one. The Democrats are the ones with no strategy. They are going to run Hillary and hope the Republicans actually nominate Cruz? Or that he somehow "destroys" a more legitimate contender like Bush? Sorry, but it isn't likely to happen and sitting on their hands and running only one candidate is not going to make them look like the adult party it is going to make Hillary look even worse to the public than she already does and the Democrats as a whole look like a party with no fresh ideas or fresh faces except for a tired old horse they are trotting out for a second try after the country rejected her once already (and she has done nothing to redeem herself to those people in the meantime, only more camera time and more press to make people sick and tired of her).

The Democrats are perfectly capable of defeating themselves, they do it all the time. Republicans are just playing their game and I don't think they are really that concerned about the general at all right now. Hillary seems to have the worst political advisers in history and she is going to lose at this rate.

[Admiral Piett]

Ted Cruz is running now? Good, he can help implode the Republican party.

Lol why? So we can have Hillary's third term? I want Cruz to go down in flames too, but I don't want him and the Huckabee/Graham types to drag down the entire opposition.

[Vanoi]

Lol why? So we can have Hillary's third term?

Hilary > Ted Cruz. Not that i even want her to win. Will have to wait to see who else decides to run.

[snuggans]

It isn't a bad strategy for Republicans, it is a brilliant one. The Democrats are the ones with no strategy. They are going to run Hillary and hope the Republicans actually nominate Cruz? Or that he somehow "destroys" a more legitimate contender like Bush? Sorry, but it isn't likely to happen and sitting on their hands and running only one candidate is not going to make them look like the adult party it is going to make Hillary look even worse to the public than she already does and the Democrats as a whole look like a party with no fresh ideas or fresh faces except for a tired old horse they are trotting out for a second try after the country rejected her once already (and she has done nothing to redeem herself to those people in the meantime, only more camera time and more press to make people sick and tired of her).

1896 vs 2201 is not a result that says "the country rejected her once already" it's "we could only pick one but you would have come closer than McCain or Romney if you were allowed to run".

besides, in polling, Clinton leads for a good while until spring 2008, but still she maintains a 40% that increases to over 50% today, again nowhere near being "rejected"

[Lord Thesaurian]

Ted Cruz would lose a general election to Kermit the Frog. The man is about as extremist and unelectable as it gets. I don't think I have ever heard someone repeatedly say more idiotic things as a Senator than Rafael Eduardo Cruz (his real full name). Scary thing is if anyone panders to him in the primaries. Most Republicans I know even think Cruz is just a complete idiot.


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...sliked-to-win/

Having done a bit of work on the Hill I'd say that many if not most House Republicans and Republicans in general regard Cruz as a joke. GOP staffers occasionally entertain themselves around the proverbial water cooler with "Hey, did you hear what Cruz just said/did?" His constituents love him because he is just the sort of vitriolic reactionary that makes the kind of noise people like to hear. His advantage as a purely obstructionist representative is that he can appear to champion his constituents as a no-nonsense anti-establishment type without having to defend an actual record of things he has accomplished while in office.

What I don't get (as an outsider looking in), is that there are clearly a lot of intelligence, sensible, centre-right people both in the GOP and outside who would identify with many of its ideals. But yet the party feels it needs to pander to the extreme right fringes of its support base during primaries; alienating many swing and independent voters along the way, and ending up with a candidate who has no chance of winning in the general.

The problem with the Silent Majority is that it's silent. Many so-called "RINOs" I know are all for "liberal" platforms like immigration reform and marriage equality, but the hardcore constituency is holding the party captive. You wouldn't believe the level of hate-filled, hysterical, vitriolic ignorance that had my District Rep's phone ringing off the hook last summer during the Latin American refugee crisis. It was almost enough to make me want to leave the country. But I took comfort in the knowledge that only one or two of these morons was from my hometown Even so, these are the people my Congressman has to deal with when he seeks reelection. C'est la vie.

[James the Red]

What I can see happening is a Republican candidate for President trying to be someone both conservatives and moderates can stand, but pick a conservative person that would be really popular with conservatives as a Vice-president. Although that can really backfire like what happened with McCain and Palin.

Can you imagine if McCain had won the presidency and then died? Sarah Palin, first female US president... And if it happened soon after the election, 4 years of a Palin presidency...

[tarvu]

1896 vs 2201 is not a result that says "the country rejected her once already" it's "we could only pick one but you would have come closer than McCain or Romney if you were allowed to run".

besides, in polling, Clinton leads for a good while until spring 2008, but still she maintains a 40% that increases to over 50% today, again nowhere near being "rejected"

She was/is a frontrunner because of her last name, just like Jeb Bush became a front runner as soon as it looked like he might run. But just because you are a frontrunner, being someone people have "heard of" in a field of people no one have heard of doesn't mean you stand a chance in a general election.

At least Jeb Bush will be able to play the "I'm not my brother card", and many people do not know him personally or his politics. People have seen Hillary for over 20 years, she is incredibly polarizing and is no where near as exciting to Democrats as she was even in 2008 when she was defeated by a junior senator despite her supporters going all out to lose as narrowly as she did. They made a lot of enemies in '08, and she didn't repair any of those connections. Nor did she improve her public persona at all as Secretary of State or afterwards.

She continues to give speeches that come off as incredibly fake, disingenuous, and arrogant. The polls you see are the democrat/independent(lean dem) majority in this country merely showing that among the likely candidates she is the most well known. Once Jeb Bush or whoever gets the Republican nominee has the time to campaign that will no longer be an advantage, and her negatives will drag the party down. The Democrats need to run someone else with a chance to if nothing else make her appear like she can beat a serious challenger because she can't. If given an option between two roughly equal choices she will lose once again because people are tired of her, she is not very likeable, and her politics are extremely outdated.

Democrats need people to turn out to vote in order to win a presidential election, they need momentum and excitement, she is not going to get people to vote and is going to lose worse than Kerry (and maybe even to a worse candidate than GW Bush). Young people don't want her, women are split, and her blue dog tactics are as I said outdated outside of some pockets in the East and in primary states where she has basically bought people's votes for life conservative democrats are more likely to vote for a Republican. She alienated the African electorate during the 08 primaries, and I doubt she can get say Hispanic voters either unless she somehow mends fences enough with someone like Bill Richardson to get him to run as her VP.

So where is she going to win? It's easy to answer Hillary on a phone survey when the other options at this point are jokes, but that isn't going to be enough to get enough people to the polls. Her only chance is if she drastically changes course in terms of the kind of political advice she is getting. At this point in her career that is not likely. She has a style, bland and antagonistic.

I hope it is Bush v Clinton, with two strong third party candidates to split the vote out of each side. That might be the best thing for this country no matter who wins. I know I would vote for them, not since Humphrey v. Nixon has a third party looked better. So someone run, get a Paul to run as a libertarian and get a real progressive and test the waters to show the parties they need to reform. Maybe... though they stand no chance of winning just maybe we can erode the old guard of congress as parties cannibalize themselves in order to avoid such a divisive split again.

At least one of them would best Perot's best showing, the youth would go crazy for an alternative to these two tired names (as would many others).

[Condottiere 40K]

Brand recognition is very important, in order to lock up as much as possible of the large donors, and starve any potential challengers of funds.13122

[tarvu]

Brand recognition is very important, in order to lock up as much as possible of the large donors, and starve any potential challengers of funds.13122

The problem with having an old brand though is that there are also donors who will fund a challenger to you. Hillary and Bill have created enemies and the party is hardly united behind them like it once was. They are the old guard now and the party is in general weak and ineffectual so you don't see it like you do with the GOP and teabaggers but there is plenty of money, and political establishment in many places that would again support opposition to her and if the party ignores that then they are setting themselves up for a challenge from a third party in the general which would be glorious. Or worse many would simply sit it out and let her lose. I don't see how she can win over those who don't already support her at this stage unless she gets a new strategy.

[Condottiere 40K]

13242
Like I've mentioned before, this is her last chance, and if she goes for it, all stops will be pulled out.

Generally, the GOP seem to select their nominees by seniority, while the Democrats appear to be willing to push younger candidates. W being an exception, since he was groomed for the post.

[tarvu]

13242
Like I've mentioned before, this is her last chance, and if she goes for it, all stops will be pulled out.

Generally, the GOP seem to select their nominees by seniority, while the Democrats appear to be willing to push younger candidates. W being an exception, since he was groomed for the post.

No all stops were pulled out in 2008. That is why the primary dragged on so long, and that is why/how the Clintons made many enemies in the party. They used hardball tactics against Obama, tried everything they could to peel support from him and he still won despite being one of the biggest underdogs in recent history to get a nomination.

What else can she do that she didn't do in 08? Appeal to the right even more (as seems to be her current tactic)? Again that just isn't going to appeal to anyone who doesn't already support her 100%. She was the shoe in in '08 and she didn't get it, nothing has changed since then. This isn't Reagan we are talking about, or even McCain in 08 who built on top of his earlier success. The Clinton brand is in decline.

Normally I'd agree with you but the Democrats seem to deliberately discouraging anyone from challenging her so who is the party of the establishment/old guard? At least Republicans are seriously running contenders every election while the Clintons have been trying to corner the Democrats all to themselves (and failing). A party that doesn't run a legitimate primary doesn't deserve and won't generate any excitement come general election time. This isn't Europe or Israel.

[chilon]

I agree that the party has become much more extreme, but Bush wasn't exactly the perfect centrist and did plenty of pandering himself. He was more establishment, Romney was establishment, and Jeb (who is the likely nominee) is establishment but they all pander too. Reagan pandered it just isn't new for them to be dragged to the right especially during primaries (but honestly during the general cycle as well).

The difference for moderates I suppose is whether they say to themselves "Oh he is just saying this crap to appeal to the crazies" as was the case for Romney, McCain and GW Bush or if they think he is a true believer like Cruz/Palin. I don't know if it hurt any of the actual general candidates, I think they lost because their opponents were more appealing (or less in the case of GW) and it is a two choice system.

The only reason the Democrats don't have to appeal as strongly to progressives is because it is a party of wimps who are afraid of their shadow, they could absolutely be advocating for universal healthcare and other progressive ideas right now and it wouldn't hurt them anymore than the pandering the Republicans do to their extremist base. Republicans also aren't just pandering to teabaggers, mostly they are appealing to big donors when they say insane crap like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson. These donors also probably know that Cruz has no chance, and such insane ideas they promote aren't likely to happen anytime soon but by putting it out there they move the country's tolerance for such ideas further to the right.

It isn't a bad strategy for Republicans, it is a brilliant one. The Democrats are the ones with no strategy. They are going to run Hillary and hope the Republicans actually nominate Cruz? Or that he somehow "destroys" a more legitimate contender like Bush? Sorry, but it isn't likely to happen and sitting on their hands and running only one candidate is not going to make them look like the adult party it is going to make Hillary look even worse to the public than she already does and the Democrats as a whole look like a party with no fresh ideas or fresh faces except for a tired old horse they are trotting out for a second try after the country rejected her once already (and she has done nothing to redeem herself to those people in the meantime, only more camera time and more press to make people sick and tired of her).

The Democrats are perfectly capable of defeating themselves, they do it all the time. Republicans are just playing their game and I don't think they are really that concerned about the general at all right now. Hillary seems to have the worst political advisers in history and she is going to lose at this rate.

The Republicans have generally had a better strategy than Democrats for the last 15 years. The determined effort to keep bringing up extremist conservative ideas again and again ends up shifting the public discourse to the right and therefore moving the "center" further and further to the right.

The danger of Cruz is that he repeatedly brings up the lunatic fringe and with a straight face presents it as somehow a reasonable position. He will inevitably shift the overall "center" to the right and thus he will likely be more effective this election cycle than Warren who looks like she is just going to hide.

You are right the Democrats are wimps. They are afraid to challenge their own political aristocracy. Hilary really shouldn't even be considered a viable candidate at this point. Yet the Democrats have been bereft of any new ideas. Obama has been playing defense for years now instead of doing anything that could counter the constant Tea Party droning which shifts the general perception of what the political center is further to the right.

The Democrats desperately need an interesting field in the primaries. Warren, O'Malley and some random governors should be running. This whole "lets move aside and let Hilary have her chance" is just insulting as it gives us no options.

[Condottiere 40K]

It's where the funding comes from.
14224

[Admiral Piett]

Having done a bit of work on the Hill I'd say that many if not most House Republicans and Republicans in general regard Cruz as a joke. GOP staffers occasionally entertain themselves around the proverbial water cooler with "Hey, did you hear what Cruz just said/did?" His constituents love him because he is just the sort of vitriolic reactionary that makes the kind of noise people like to hear. His advantage as a purely obstructionist representative is that he can appear to champion his constituents as a no-nonsense anti-establishment type without having to defend an actual record of things he has accomplished while in office.

The problem with the Silent Majority is that it's silent. Many so-called "RINOs" I know are all for "liberal" platforms like immigration reform and marriage equality, but the hardcore constituency is holding the party captive. You wouldn't believe the level of hate-filled, hysterical, vitriolic ignorance that had my District Rep's phone ringing off the hook last summer during the Latin American refugee crisis. It was almost enough to make me want to leave the country. But I took comfort in the knowledge that only one or two of these morons was from my hometown Even so, these are the people my Congressman has to deal with when he seeks reelection. C'est la vie.

Aye. The Republicans don't need another Reagan, they need a Richard Nixon. The silent majority can make for a smooth victory if they played more to that constituency.

[tarvu]

Aye. The Republicans don't need another Reagan, they need a Richard Nixon. The silent majority can make for a smooth victory if they played more to that constituency.

WTF are you talking about. I get that it is "hipster cool" to take a revisionist view of Nixon's presidency, but to go as far as to say he was the master of the "silent majority" is taking revisionism wayyyyy too far.

Nixon gave birth to the Southern Strategy, he is the prototypical racist bigoted foul mouthed hate mongering divisive extremist Republican presidential candidate. He won elections by attacking hippies, young people, minorities and supposed subversive leftist elements to appeal to scared white voters in the midst of an extremely unpopular war in which many of the same people he targeted were drafted and dying for this country, he is as bad or worse than Ted Cruz. Nixon was so bad the country was forever changed after his presidency, no man did more damage to trust/faith in American politics as Richard Nixon and that was true even before Watergate, Nixon/Frost, or the tapes. There is no way in hell a man like that could survive in the current American political atmosphere, not even the worst of Tea Party freshmen congressman could be compared to the kind of figure Nixon was.

Reagan is the one who attempted to appeal to moderates, that is why they are called Reagan democrats. Without Reagan the Republican party might very well have died because of Nixon. Nixon politically is best known for capitalizing on divisive politics.

Your post makes me physically ill.

I'd vote for Ted Cruz over Richard Nixon, at least Ted Cruz's proposals are not that we need to reign in "troublemakers" within the country who are at the root of all our problems. He is much less divisive than Nixon was, Nixon gave birth to terrible domestic policies that plague us to today and was the height of advocating for a "get tough" fascist approach on nearly all social problems. He was a pure fear monger and that was just about the only card politically he ever played.

Richard Nixon, I piss on Richard Nixon, I spit on Richard Nixon. He got off far too easy, he should have been stabbed to death on the Senate floor Caesar style.

Smooth victory my ass....

[Lord Thesaurian]

WTF are you talking about. I get that it is "hipster cool" to take a revisionist view of Nixon's presidency, but to go as far as to say he was the master of the "silent majority" is taking revisionism wayyyyy too far.

Nixon gave birth to the Southern Strategy, he is the prototypical racist bigoted foul mouthed hate mongering divisive extremist Republican presidential candidate. He won elections by attacking hippies, young people, minorities and supposed subversive leftist elements to appeal to scared white voters in the midst of an extremely unpopular war in which many of the same people he targeted were drafted and dying for this country, he is as bad or worse than Ted Cruz. Nixon was so bad the country was forever changed after his presidency, no man did more damage to trust/faith in American politics as Richard Nixon and that was true even before Watergate, Nixon/Frost, or the tapes. There is no way in hell a man like that could survive in the current American political atmosphere, not even the worst of Tea Party freshmen congressman could be compared to the kind of figure Nixon was.

Reagan is the one who attempted to appeal to moderates, that is why they are called Reagan democrats. Without Reagan the Republican party might very well have died because of Nixon. Nixon politically is best known for capitalizing on divisive politics.

Your post makes me physically ill.

I'd vote for Ted Cruz over Richard Nixon, at least Ted Cruz's proposals are not that we need to reign in "troublemakers" within the country who are at the root of all our problems. He is much less divisive than Nixon was, Nixon gave birth to terrible domestic policies that plague us to today and was the height of advocating for a "get tough" fascist approach on nearly all social problems. He was a pure fear monger and that was just about the only card politically he ever played.

Richard Nixon, I piss on Richard Nixon, I spit on Richard Nixon. He got off far too easy, he should have been stabbed to death on the Senate floor Caesar style.

Smooth victory my ass....

Tell me, is there a single post of yours here or anywhere that isn't hysterically emotive to the point of hyperventilation? Say what you will about Nixon's character flaws, were it not for Watergate, the man would easily have been recognized as one of the foremost presidents of the 20th century. He was a tremendous statesman who opened the door to Red China at a time when Sino-US relations were comparable to those with Iran in our time, prompting the USSR to yield to more productive negotiations after over a decade of nearly open hostility. Domestically he would be a viable Democrat nowadays, actively working to smooth the process of racial integration in the South, expanding Medicaid access for the poor and proposing an employer health insurance mandate while spearheading the first major federal environmental protection initiatives in US history - all in just over 4 years in office. Yeah, I, like, totes see Ted Cruz doing any of those things.

But please, I'd like another helping of self-righteous indignation. Make that two scoops, pretty please.....