Law School Discussion

POTUS

POTUS
« on: June 19, 2015, 09:25:33 PM »
Who will replace Barack Obama? 

Re: POTUS
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2015, 11:09:14 PM »
Donald Chump

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: POTUS
« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2015, 07:10:59 AM »
The obvious answer is Hillary Clinton. If I was to bet. Because she will win the Democratic nomination, whereas the GOP side is still unsettled. And this far out, the Dem. nominee looks to be a slight favorite. Of course, events happen.

On the GOP side? I'd have to say Rubio or Walker. I can't imagine another Bush managing to win, and he's not a good campaigner, and his immigration position will kill him in the primaries. That said, he'll have the money and the backing of the party establishment, and that's all his brother needed in 2000.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2015, 07:27:40 AM »
Looking at it from an unbiased perspective - my guess is Clinton v. Bush.

Rubio is a strong contender, but is still too green. Obama was green, but had the charisma and smarts to win debates. Clinton would likely annihilate Rubio in debates. Rand Paul is an interesting candidate, but unlikely to garner enough support from the conservative base. Opposite is true for Sanders... interesting candidate, but unlikely to garner enough support from the liberal base.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #4 on: June 20, 2015, 03:39:56 PM »
There is a nearly 100% chance Hilary will win her local nomination. I don't think Bush is such a lock though. Republicans could go in any direction right now. They expected her to win the last time Obama beat her in the primary (thus the Palin fiasco)

Re: POTUS
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2015, 01:56:34 PM »
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that 2016 will be a little less predictable than 2008 or 2012. In 2008 the Republicans were doomed. Following the Iraq War and the economic collapse they were going to lose almost regardless of who the Democrats ran.

By 2012, some of Obama's lustre had worn off but he was still relatively popular. The combination of higher than usual minority/young turnout and Romney's general lack of appeal allowed him to squeak out a victory.

In 2016 the conventional wisdom is that demographic trends favor Hillary Clinton. I generally agree, but certain caveats apply.

First, minority and youth turnout will almost certainly be lower simply because Obama isn't running. This may be mitigated by higher than average female turnout, however.

Second, the last few years have not gone too well for Obama. This could result in a rejection of Democratic policies by swing voters. Registered Democrats and registered Republicans tend to vote along party lines no matter the candidate. But in states like Ohio, Colorado, Florida, etc., independent voters will make the decision. If the country is still puttering along economically, they will blame the Democrats.

Last, there is the issue of Hillary herself. She has any ardent supporters, but she also has many detractors. Among independent voters in swing states, she polls badly. Obama polled fairly well among these voters.

The Wildcard
If the Republicans nominate a nut (Ted Cruz/Rand Paul, etc), or can't control the dumber members of the party who make racist/sexist/xenophobic comments, then they'll lose regardless. I have a feeling, however, that they've already begun to reign that stuff in. The about-face by the Republicans in SC over the Confederate flag may be a sign of this. 

Summation
Clinton has an electoral vote edge going into the election, and will likely win. However, it will be closer (IMHO) than the last few elections.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2015, 10:41:17 PM »
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that 2016 will be a little less predictable than 2008 or 2012. In 2008 the Republicans were doomed. Following the Iraq War and the economic collapse they were going to lose almost regardless of who the Democrats ran.

By 2012, some of Obama's lustre had worn off but he was still relatively popular. The combination of higher than usual minority/young turnout and Romney's general lack of appeal allowed him to squeak out a victory.

In 2016 the conventional wisdom is that demographic trends favor Hillary Clinton. I generally agree, but certain caveats apply.

First, minority and youth turnout will almost certainly be lower simply because Obama isn't running. This may be mitigated by higher than average female turnout, however.

Second, the last few years have not gone too well for Obama. This could result in a rejection of Democratic policies by swing voters. Registered Democrats and registered Republicans tend to vote along party lines no matter the candidate. But in states like Ohio, Colorado, Florida, etc., independent voters will make the decision. If the country is still puttering along economically, they will blame the Democrats.

Last, there is the issue of Hillary herself. She has any ardent supporters, but she also has many detractors. Among independent voters in swing states, she polls badly. Obama polled fairly well among these voters.

The Wildcard
If the Republicans nominate a nut (Ted Cruz/Rand Paul, etc), or can't control the dumber members of the party who make racist/sexist/xenophobic comments, then they'll lose regardless. I have a feeling, however, that they've already begun to reign that stuff in. The about-face by the Republicans in SC over the Confederate flag may be a sign of this. 

Summation
Clinton has an electoral vote edge going into the election, and will likely win. However, it will be closer (IMHO) than the last few elections.
I agree with SOME of what you said, and I agree that they would have lost to the idea of "but we've never had a (insert anything, even a dog on a skateboard with sunglasses and a Hawaiian shirt here-I'd vote for it) And now that we've had the token X, we'll like sheep vote for Token Y too. But I honestly think if it had been a white male dem like Kerry he'd have lost. It's easy to get deep into ones own party and think "EVERYONE" thinks a certain way......but they don't. Never have, never will. But EVERYONE is guilty of it.

Honestly people are sheep. Blacks got angry when "tricked" into voting for a white guy remember? http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2013/11/11/pkg-white-politican-implies-black-fliers.khou

Sheep pretend not to be sheep, but get angry if they find out they voted on THE ISSUES alone..........silly f-ing sheep.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2015, 12:48:15 PM »
I'm fairly active in Democratic politics (worked on a few campaigns, etc), and I can honestly say that the prevailing attitude seems to be "Let's hold our nose and vote for Hillary." Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

She simply does not generate the kind of excitement that Obama did, and I suspect that will result in lower turnout.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2015, 05:23:12 PM »
I'm fairly active in Democratic politics (worked on a few campaigns, etc), and I can honestly say that the prevailing attitude seems to be "Let's hold our nose and vote for Hillary." Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

She simply does not generate the kind of excitement that Obama did, and I suspect that will result in lower turnout.

still better than how Republicans were with Romney. That was a funeral.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2015, 11:13:41 PM »
I think something interesting is going on with party fragmentation. 
As an independent this is going to be fun to watch. Swing states of course will be the ultimate obvious key and the primary voting states could lend momentum to any one candidate but I think outcomes will be static and two way three way ties on the republican side which will add a whimsy aspect-- thus the clown car moniker.

The major quirk on the democrats side is the fact that Clinton has many hoops to jump through if she wants to win because she needs ALL the souls at the polls -- has to have Obama turnouts if she is going to win the general.  She will not turn voters.  On the republican side if Paul can coalesce a majority of independents he could turn votes.  A friend of mine who is anti war but independent only recently started taking Paul seriously.  So, conviction is key if independents are to be swayed.

Clinton has oversaturation of familiarity while Paul is under recognized.

clinton is polarizing while Paul is less known but not unknown.  These are their major flaws.

The clinton campaign has the toughest battle because while the money is there her surreptitious, furtive behavior with regard to a private email server create daily visceral baggage compounded by her comments while standing over four coffins and grieving loved ones where she blames a video for their deaths lends an aura of suspended apprehension for the next shoe to drop.  So, whispers of corruption, secrecy and callousness erode away at the enthusiastic voter pool.

The fragmentation is within the Democratic Party and "dueling progressive agendas"  and in the Republican Party between civil libertarianism and establishment conservatism.

One thing is for sure.  I would not want to be a democrat hedging my bet with Hillary.  And, democrats are never enthusiastic about getting stale bread elected just regard Michael Dukakis and John Kerry.