Law School Discussion

POTUS

Re: POTUS
« Reply #20 on: June 30, 2015, 10:13:41 PM »
https://youtu.be/iayO0fU0m5g

The man in that video should be President haha. Pretty impressive that Predator featured not one, but two state governors. Why not take it one step further with a President/VP 

How could you not support a Schwarzenegger/Ventura ticket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Landham
The rabbit hole goes even deeper.................

Re: POTUS
« Reply #21 on: July 01, 2015, 01:15:17 PM »
When his citizenship becomes an issue the obvious solution is trial by armwresting between Arnold and Scalia.

That is what the founding fathers would have wanted.
 


Re: POTUS
« Reply #22 on: July 01, 2015, 02:48:00 PM »
When his citizenship becomes an issue the obvious solution is trial by armwresting between Arnold and Scalia.

That is what the founding fathers would have wanted.

The modern sissy mans version of a duel to the death on the white house lawn??

Re: POTUS
« Reply #23 on: July 05, 2015, 08:54:26 PM »
The fragmentation is within the Democratic Party and "dueling progressive agendas"  and in the Republican Party between civil libertarianism and establishment conservatism.

I essentially agree about the basis of the Democratic split, but I think the Republican split I far more damaging to their overall chances.

The Republican split is at least a three way between establishments (Bush), libertarians (Paul), and religious conservatives (Huckabee, Santorum, etc).

 I would argue that at this point the Republicans are in a real bind, a Catch-22. Candidates can't win the nomination or the general election without the evangelicals stepping up and voting, but they're doomed with independents if they appear too evangelical themselves.

The Republicans have allowed this far right element of the party to wield too much influence for too long, and now it's biting them on the a$$.

Even though I'm a Democrat, I hope they figure it out and find a way to be nationally competitive. I don't want there to be one party rule for the next few decades. Competition is good for political parties, it helps minimize corruption. California is a one party state, and look where it got us.

I think that the fragmentation of the Democratic Party is going to lead to a serious lack of enthusiasm at the polls.  Obama dems, and the national Democratic Party;  establishment dems and Reagan/Bill Clinton dems, and the levels of progressives who support people like e. Warren, b Deblasio and b. Sanders. If someone with a true progressive populist agenda wins the nomination then enthusiasm will be up but I think that if clinton makes it to the primaries and wins the nomination she will face the tsunami horde of the entire right wing of the Republican Party.   Then we will have as we independents like to call the "4 year shot"...it's what the democrats had in 2008 and 2009.   The dems have a strange dynamic this time around with clinton/ reminds me of when the pubs ran bob Dole).  and the pubs have the same dynamic they always have but there are not 2 candidates to watch---there are many candidates to watch.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #24 on: July 05, 2015, 09:06:28 PM »
Republicans are FAR more divided than Dems, and 3rd party is a joke at best for POTUS.
Hillary would galvanize them. Children love tokens.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #25 on: July 11, 2015, 09:13:44 PM »
When I mention fragmentation I think that while one candidate has the poll numbers another will have the enthusiasm and while the Democratic Party was fragmented during the 2008 primary campaign it eventually coalesced around Obama.   Clinton began with great poll numbers but the enthusiasm was pumping up around Obama; he then began to gain in the polls.  The Republican Party is not only fragmented among different factions but divided among the 8 candidates running. Poll numbers are muddled and there is NO obvious enthusiasm among any one candidate.

Again, this will level out after a long primary season for the pubs slogging it out but the dems fragmentation could break if the gap closes between Clinton and Sanders or it too could level out say if Al Gore enters the race or Biden

Re: POTUS
« Reply #26 on: July 11, 2015, 11:11:21 PM »
You are over thinking this

YES the leader in the Republican pointless strawpoll is a promised loser due to the underdog energy or whatever
BUT Hillary is the Democrats TOKEN (just as Obama was) the only "this is the greatest fairytale ever" *&^% out of bills mouth was just because there were two tokens. To be fair he accidently inspired millions by saying that. He was just too stupid to know it. Crazy thing about being drunk on power. You start to act like the town drunk.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #27 on: July 12, 2015, 10:57:12 AM »
Distill this upcoming election own to it's essential facts, and here's what you're left with:

Regardless of primary season infighting, both Dems and Reps will coalesce around their candidate. A few diehards may not show up and vote because their unhappy with the candidate, but historically these numbers are low.

Democratic turnout will be a little lower, as Obama is not running.

The election will be decided in a handful of states: Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, and to a lesser extent North Carolina.

In each of these states Dem/Rep registration is very close. Independents will decide the election.

In each of these states, Clinton polls badly among independents.

Like I said before Clinton still has a good shot, but this could be much closer than 2008 or 2012 as long as the Reps don't nominate a nut.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: POTUS
« Reply #28 on: July 12, 2015, 11:20:50 AM »
"In each of these states, Clinton polls badly among independents. "

I have to call BS. There are very few independents. Instead, there are (for the most part) partisans that call themselves independents. See, inter alia, http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/americans-arent-becoming-more-politically-independent-they-just-like-saying-they-are/

Pull quote- "According to the American National Elections Study (ANES), 92 percent of Democrats voted for President Obama in 2012 just a tad higher than the 88 percent of Democratic-leaning independents who did so. Ninety-two percent of Republicans and 86 percent of Republican-leaning independents voted for Mitt Romney."

The election will come down to the economy at the time (relative to expectations) and the general partisan extremism of the candidate (relative to the partisanship of the party), with the second factor being much less important. And general get out the vote efforts.

We like to tell ourselves "just so" stories after an election, which are almost always untrue. Telling ourselves "just so" stories prior to an election is even more of a fool's errand.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #29 on: July 12, 2015, 01:53:56 PM »
Obviously, any prognostications this far out are bound to be fraught with unknown variables. The economy, foreign policy crises, scandals, you name it.

It's sort of irrelevant what your personal definition of "independent" is, however. What matters is how they are accounted for in polling data. I agree with you that most independents skew either left or right, and the better polling data accounts for this by distinguishing between Democratic and Republican leaning independents. I also agree (and stated in my previous post) that Democrats will vote Democrat and Republicans will vote Republican.

Here's the difference I see between 2016 and 2008/2012. In most battleground states Obama did pretty well among independents. He even did well in Colorado, where independents skew right.

The most recent polling data from ABC and CNN suggests that Hillary Clinton does not enjoy the same popularity among those designated as "independents". In states like Colorado and Ohio where the margin of victory could be as low as 2-3%, this is potentially impactful.

So, if 90% of Republican leaning independents vote for a Republican (as opposed to the 86% in 2012), and there is lower than 2012 minority turnout, you could see a much tighter race. That's all I'm saying.