Will Ted Cruz run for President? Can he beat Hillary Clinton?

[2MuchMark]

I'm seeing news lately that fuckhead Cruz thinks he can be President. Will there be any idiots that vote for him instead of Hillary Clinton? Canada loves you and hopes you do not.

[kane]

He might run, I can't imagine him winning, but you never know, sometimes the voters do crazy shit.

[dyna mo]

it doesn't matter who the repubs put in to run, they will win the presidency this next go round.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

it doesn't matter who the repubs put in to run, they will win the presidency this next go round.

I'm not sure about this.

The entire Republican rhetoric has been "Obama failed to fix the economy" and "Obamacare is bad". The problem with this line of attack is both are incorrect.

No matter how you look at it, the economy is doing better. Don't even pretend otherwise; It's just better. (How could it not be?)

Obamacare is here, it's a law, and while the launch was a disaster it isn't nearly as bad as the Republicans made it out to be. It's accomplished it's goal of getting more people on a healthcare plan, and it will get better with time.

The new line of attack seems to be focused on Benghazi. I fail to understand this at any level. The spin our government tried to put on Benghazi after the fact is irrelevant; This was an intelligence operation by the CIA. It's common sense that our government tried to blow it off; We do not comment on intelligence matters. We just don't. This is pretty obviously a direct attack on Hillary, which is most likely going to be the front runner for the Democratic party. This is a pre emptive strike at Hillary which makes sense at the strategic level (they need to get her shut down) but I think it's doomed to fail because the spin on what happened AFTER Benghazi is not important to anyone.

I am not Democrat or Republican; I'm just calling it as I see it. I had to look up Ted Cruz to make sure I knew who he is. Outside of Jeb in Florida, and McCain, I don't know anyone either party can tap to run. Well, Binden I guess, but good luck with that. Oh, of course, Palin - I would love to see her run again.

I saw an article that other day that said we should only elect former governors... Because they are the only ones that really "know how to run things". A great example of this is Obama - He's never really run anything. He represented his state as a Senator, but hasn't really "done" anything.

[PR_Glen]

You need a new hobby man..

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

it doesn't matter who the repubs put in to run, they will win the presidency this next go round.

Care to make a little wager on that?

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

You need a new hobby man..

God help me I do. I really do.

[GregE]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

it doesn't matter who the repubs put in to run, they will win the presidency this next go round.

You're kidding, right?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by **********

Care to make a little wager on that?




God help me I do. I really do.

naw, I don't gamble. I should though. Especially on this, history proves my comment correct.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by GregE

You're kidding, right?

history, look into it.

[kane]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

history, look into it.

Historically the opposite party tends to win after one party has held the white house for 8+ years (at least recent history going back tot he 1960's).

There are some things that could make that different this time around. For starters, the country is skewing democrat right now. The current young generation of newer voters are more liberal and left than past generations and the fastest growing segments of the population is among non-whites who tend to vote democrat. Next, the electoral map right now favors democrats. That could change in the next three years, but it will take a big effort for that to happen.

To me the big things that will help determine who wins are:

1. How the economy is doing. If the economy continues to improve the democrats can use that as a positive.

2. Obamacare. It had a shitty roll out and some people hate it, but others like it. The approval ratings for it are slowly going up. In three years it will have been in place for a while and we will have a real taste of how it has affected us. If it seems to be doing fine, it could be an asset for the democrats, if not it will hurt them.

3. Hillary. If she decides to run she will be very hard to beat. Most prominent democrats will likely step out of her way so her primaries could be smooth sailing that she mostly use to get a head start for the general election. She will have Bill in tow and nobody campaigns like Bill. She has a lot of young supporters as the Clintons have shown they can get the young people to the polls.

If the stars align and the economy and obamacare are doing well and Hillary runs she will be nearly impossible for a republican to win. However, if she doesn't run and/or those things are not doing very well, it could be anyone's game.

[SuckOnThis]

I'll wager that there will never be another republican president.

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I saw an article that other day that said we should only elect former governors... Because they are the only ones that really "know how to run things". A great example of this is Obama - He's never really run anything. He represented his state as a Senator, but hasn't really "done" anything.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by kane

Historically the opposite party tends to win after one party has held the white house for 8+ years (at least recent history going back tot he 1960's).

There are some things that could make that different this time around. For starters, the country is skewing democrat right now. The current young generation of newer voters are more liberal and left than past generations and the fastest growing segments of the population is among non-whites who tend to vote democrat. Next, the electoral map right now favors democrats. That could change in the next three years, but it will take a big effort for that to happen.

To me the big things that will help determine who wins are:

1. How the economy is doing. If the economy continues to improve the democrats can use that as a positive.

2. Obamacare. It had a shitty roll out and some people hate it, but others like it. The approval ratings for it are slowly going up. In three years it will have been in place for a while and we will have a real taste of how it has affected us. If it seems to be doing fine, it could be an asset for the democrats, if not it will hurt them.

3. Hillary. If she decides to run she will be very hard to beat. Most prominent democrats will likely step out of her way so her primaries could be smooth sailing that she mostly use to get a head start for the general election. She will have Bill in tow and nobody campaigns like Bill. She has a lot of young supporters as the Clintons have shown they can get the young people to the polls.

If the stars align and the economy and obamacare are doing well and Hillary runs she will be nearly impossible for a republican to win. However, if she doesn't run and/or those things are not doing very well, it could be anyone's game.

all valid points, although I thought the trend began with roosevelt in the 40s. Nevertheless, the other mitagating factor behind my prediction is the dem party has taken a bigger hit due to obama, than the republican party has, a look at obama statistics support this. Also, peeps forget how close the latest pres election was.

All of those tied together = a republican victory.

[1215]

what idiot would want hillary as president? she would be as bad as that terrorist in office now.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

At the very least.... She's easier on the eyes than freaking Hillary.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by kane

Historically the opposite party tends to win after one party has held the white house for 8+ years (at least recent history going back tot he 1960's).

There are some things that could make that different this time around. For starters, the country is skewing democrat right now. The current young generation of newer voters are more liberal and left than past generations and the fastest growing segments of the population is among non-whites who tend to vote democrat. Next, the electoral map right now favors democrats. That could change in the next three years, but it will take a big effort for that to happen.

To me the big things that will help determine who wins are:

1. How the economy is doing. If the economy continues to improve the democrats can use that as a positive.

2. Obamacare. It had a shitty roll out and some people hate it, but others like it. The approval ratings for it are slowly going up. In three years it will have been in place for a while and we will have a real taste of how it has affected us. If it seems to be doing fine, it could be an asset for the democrats, if not it will hurt them.

3. Hillary. If she decides to run she will be very hard to beat. Most prominent democrats will likely step out of her way so her primaries could be smooth sailing that she mostly use to get a head start for the general election. She will have Bill in tow and nobody campaigns like Bill. She has a lot of young supporters as the Clintons have shown they can get the young people to the polls.

If the stars align and the economy and obamacare are doing well and Hillary runs she will be nearly impossible for a republican to win. However, if she doesn't run and/or those things are not doing very well, it could be anyone's game.

Great post.

I agree with you that after eight years we tend to switch, but in this case the Republicans have been employing a "everything Obama does is bad" campaign and this is no longer working. You mentioned the economy and Obamacare - The Republican party has tried to make both of these look bad but that isn't working. They just changed tracks and their plan is to bang Benghazi as much as they can, but that's not going to work either. Meantime the Democrats will continue on with their "steady as it goes".

I don't understand Hillary or her following. I also don't get how the Clinton's get the younger vote either (I mean, other than Bill getting blown in the Oval Office).

[MaDalton]

[kane]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

all valid points, although I thought the trend began with roosevelt in the 40s. Nevertheless, the other mitagating factor behind my prediction is the dem party has taken a bigger hit due to obama, than the republican party has, a look at obama statistics support this. Also, peeps forget how close the latest pres election was.

All of those tied together = a republican victory.

The most recent presidential election wasn't all that close. Obama got 5 million more votes and the final electoral vote count was 332-206.

That said, of course the republicans can win. If they can take back Virginia, win Florida and Ohio that is a 60 electoral vote in their favor. The problem is that isn't enough. They still need to win either Colorado, New Mexico or Iowa. With legal weed I think Colorado is out of reach, but they might be able to win either of those other two states.

As the map sits it is an uphill battle, but they have a shot. The key for them will be picking a candidate that can get some of the moderate independents to vote for them.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Great post.

I agree with you that after eight years we tend to switch,

You agree with 70+ year long fact that represents the entire modern era of presidential voting since the presidential term limit was put in place? nice.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by 1215

what idiot would want hillary as president? she would be as bad as that terrorist in office now.

So, you would prefer Ted Cruz?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by kane

The most recent presidential election wasn't all that close. Obama got 5 million more votes and the final electoral vote count was 332-206.

That said, of course the republicans can win. If they can take back Virginia, win Florida and Ohio that is a 60 electoral vote in their favor. The problem is that isn't enough. They still need to win either Colorado, New Mexico or Iowa. With legal weed I think Colorado is out of reach, but they might be able to win either of those other two states.

As the map sits it is an uphill battle, but they have a shot. The key for them will be picking a candidate that can get some of the moderate independents to vote for them.

The final popular vote totals were 65,899,660 for Obama-Biden (51.1%) and 60,932,152 (47.2%) for Romney-Ryan

that's close, regardless of how the votes shake out in the electoral college.

nevertheless, republicans win in 2016, there's nothing to suggest the 70 year trend will change.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Great post.

I agree with you that after eight years we tend to switch, but in this case the Republicans have been employing a "everything Obama does is bad" campaign and this is no longer working. You mentioned the economy and Obamacare - The Republican party has tried to make both of these look bad but that isn't working. They just changed tracks and their plan is to bang Benghazi as much as they can, but that's not going to work either. Meantime the Democrats will continue on with their "steady as it goes".

I don't understand Hillary or her following. I also don't get how the Clinton's get the younger vote either (I mean, other than Bill getting blown in the Oval Office).

Bill was one of the first candidate to embrace what I call "Young Media." At the time it was MTV. Obama took it to a new level when he took things online and took out ads in online video games and things like that. Bill went on MTV, held town hall meetings with college kids that were televised and went on talks shows where he played the sax while wearing his shades. He seemed like a cool guy you would want to hang with and smoke a joint with younger people connected with that.

Now those younger people are in their 30's and 40's, but the Clintons still seem to have a connection to the young voters. Hillary had a lot of support from younger women when she ran in 2008.

[wehateporn]

It's already been decided long ago who will be president

[ruff]

GFY's intellectual round table is now in session. Who is the pivot man?

[kane]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

The final popular vote totals were 65,899,660 for Obama-Biden (51.1%) and 60,932,152 (47.2%) for Romney-Ryan

that's close, regardless of how the votes shake out in the electoral college.

nevertheless, republicans win in 2016, there's nothing to suggest the 70 year trend will change.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think there is a chance they can win, but it is certainly not a done deal.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by ruff

GFY's intellectual round table is now in session. Who is the pivot man?

whomever is posting in here and the moby dick thread.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by kane

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think there is a chance they can win, but it is certainly not a done deal.

i wasn't asking anyone to agree. I simply stated my view, as the thread titled asked, and supported it with why I think that way after peeps posted lol smilies and disagreed with my view. no biggie.

[kane]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i wasn't asking anyone to agree. I simply stated my view, as the thread titled asked, and supported it with why I think that way after peeps posted lol smilies and disagreed with my view. no biggie.

I agree with you that history show that we will have a republican president. I just think in his particular election there are going to be some interesting factors that could strongly influence that and it could buck the trend.

[MaDalton]

i know you don't care what the rest of the world thinks but the only republican candidates that don't come across as insane lunatics would never make it through the primaries

like Jon Huntsman

[Phoenix]

let's ask diebold

[Axeman]

2016 will be interesting. Do the voting demographics more or less return to 2004? 2008 and 2012 saw a huge jump in black voters, which went 92% for Obama. Do the voter turnout numbers return to pre-Obama levels in this group?

Women already vote 4% more than men. Do the independents vote for Hillary for the first woman factor? And in enough of a % that it can make up for the reduced black vote?

Youth voters was through the roof in 2008, but dropped by almost 7% in the 2012 election. Many of the youth, college students were all about the young, fresh, and first black candidate Obama in the primaries vs Clinton. Can a 69 year old Clinton capture the imaginations and passions of the youth vote? And anywhere near the 2008 levels?

Romney lost the 4 key swing/purple States by just under 400,000. All States that also saw higher than normal turnout by the black community.

Though the economy, obamacare etc definitely will play a part as always. It really comes down to 5 swing States, and the ability for the candidate to get the superior ground game.

If Hillary can get the youth vote to get into the 43-44% turnout rate, and split the difference of the black vote in 2004 at 60% and the 2012 record turnout of 64.7%, then she will likely be able to win it. 62.5-63% has to be her target here.

If Hillary is smart, she hires almost the entire Obama ground game operation, and leaves the traditional Clinton team mostly on the sidelines.

[GregE]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

i know you don't care what the rest of the world thinks but the only republican candidates that don't come across as insane lunatics would never make it through the primaries

like Jon Huntsman

Bingo.

The Republicans have been slowly painting themselves into this corner ever since Bush Sr. started with his "family values" crap and now, finally, the corner is too small for them to leap out of.

[kane]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

i know you don't care what the rest of the world thinks but the only republican candidates that don't come across as insane lunatics would never make it through the primaries

like Jon Huntsman

That is one of the problems they have. They have to move so far to the right in order to win the nomination that they can have trouble then moving back to the middle. They have to walk a tightrope. If they go too far to the middle they risk alienating the right wing voters. If they don't go far enough they risk losing the moderates.

The republicans could do themselves a big favor by nominating a reasonably moderate candidate, but that is not very likely to happen.

[Axeman]

Originally Posted by kane

The republicans could do themselves a big favor by nominating a reasonably moderate candidate, but that is not very likely to happen.

I actually disagree with this. The Republicans have no shot if they choose another squishy guy like McCain or Romney. They need to pick a guy who stands for something. Will the Dems like that guy? Of course not. But they also don't like the moderate squishy idiots either. So stop playing to the other side, and pick someone that the base gets excited about and actually turns out, and hits the streets for.

They elect a Bush, Huntsman, Christie, Ryan, Walker, this election is as good as lost.

They elect a Cruz, Paul, Lee, they have a very good shot.

Get guys that stand for something. Don't apologize for it. And let the people decide. The base already knows what happens when they put up the squishy like the Dole's, McCain's, Romney's.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Axeman

I actually disagree with this. The Republicans have no shot if they choose another squishy guy like McCain or Romney. They need to pick a guy who stands for something. Will the Dems like that guy? Of course not. But they also don't like the moderate squishy idiots either. So stop playing to the other side, and pick someone that the base gets excited about and actually turns out, and hits the streets for.

They elect a Bush, Huntsman, Christie, Ryan, Walker, this election is as good as lost.

They elect a Cruz, Paul, Lee, they have a very good shot.

Get guys that stand for something. Don't apologize for it. And let the people decide. The base already knows what happens when they put up the squishy like the Dole's, McCain's, Romney's.

I guess it would depend on how much pull the base has in the swing states they need to win. One of their problems seems to be that many people, especially young voters, don't agree with them about social issues or they just don't care about social issues. If they pick a fire and brimstone right winger it could help them in some states,but in others it might hurt them.

They really only have to worry about electing a guy who can win the 3-5 swing states that McCain and Romney couldn't.

[Axeman]

Originally Posted by kane

I guess it would depend on how much pull the base has in the swing states they need to win. One of their problems seems to be that many people, especially young voters, don't agree with them about social issues or they just don't care about social issues. If they pick a fire and brimstone right winger it could help them in some states,but in others it might hurt them.

They really only have to worry about electing a guy who can win the 3-5 swing states that McCain and Romney couldn't.

You go with a social first guy like a Huckabee or Santorum, they are absolutely dead as well. Absolutely no question.

A guy like Paul is doing college speaking tours in traditional liberal schools, and getting rave reviews for the most part. He is connecting with the youth. His issue will be is he a bit too Libertarian for the full base to support.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by **********

Will Ted Cruz run for President? Can he beat Hillary Clinton?

Answers:
1. Maybe (he might run)
and
2. No (not a snowball's chance in hell)

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

You agree with 70+ year long fact that represents the entire modern era of presidential voting since the presidential term limit was put in place? nice.

I agree that's been the trend, but I'm not sure that will be true in the next election.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by kane

Bill was one of the first candidate to embrace what I call "Young Media." At the time it was MTV. Obama took it to a new level when he took things online and took out ads in online video games and things like that. Bill went on MTV, held town hall meetings with college kids that were televised and went on talks shows where he played the sax while wearing his shades. He seemed like a cool guy you would want to hang with and smoke a joint with younger people connected with that.

Now those younger people are in their 30's and 40's, but the Clintons still seem to have a connection to the young voters. Hillary had a lot of support from younger women when she ran in 2008.

See, I never considered "Bill Clinton" hip or anything remotely close. I don't see anyone in the White House since Kennedy as being "hip".

[kane]

Originally Posted by Axeman

You go with a social first guy like a Huckabee or Santorum, they are absolutely dead as well. Absolutely no question.

A guy like Paul is doing college speaking tours in traditional liberal schools, and getting rave reviews for the most part. He is connecting with the youth. His issue will be is he a bit too Libertarian for the full base to support.

I think a lot of younger people like the libertarian type ideals, at least from a social standpoint, but like you say, I don't think he will be able to win over the base.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by kane

I think a lot of younger people like the libertarian type ideals, at least from a social standpoint, but like you say, I don't think he will be able to win over the base.

Not only that...but he's not a real libertarian. He's more like a real Republican used to be when I was growing up. (not the crazy religious nutcase ones...but the fiscal conservative ones)

[kane]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Not only that...but he's not a real libertarian. He's more like a real Republican used to be when I was growing up. (not the crazy religious nutcase ones...but the fiscal conservative ones)

You are 100% correct. He is more of an old school republican.

[CDSmith]

The USD is finally climbing on the world market. It's nowhere near where it was back in Clinton's 2nd term or the first few years of Bush's 1st, but it's climbing.

Don't you damn Americans do anything stupid in 2016 to screw up that upward trend. Or I'll be pissed.