Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 76 of 76

Thread: Looks like Rick Perry's going to jump on the Presidential candidate bandwagon.

  1. #71
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    39,466

    Re: Looks like Rick Perry's going to jump on the Presidential candidate bandwagon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    This isn't a game decided by sides, it's a determination by the people who would be the best person to run the country, and that depends on experience, integrity, and so on.

    What did the Republicans really lose? Romney certainly doesn't need the money or prestige. Some GOP members may have lost Cabinet posts. But all we have to do it look at the consequences, (the scandals, Middle east, etc,) of who the electorate voted in to see that it was their fault. That would include the LIVs and those who stayed home rather then voting for the best candidate.
    I disagree that the election is "a determination by the people who would be the best person to run the country." That may be what it should be, but what it is more closely resembles a partisan rumble with bull(bleep!) as the primary ammunition being shot back and forth.


    And, if the winner "depends on experience, integrity, and so on," how did we elect a freshman senator with no experience?

    Twice?
    Its an unbelievably complex subject. Nobody knew health care could be so complicated. Donald Trump



  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 08:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Looks like Rick Perry's going to jump on the Presidential candidate bandwagon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    I disagree that the election is "a determination by the people who would be the best person to run the country." That may be what it should be, but what it is more closely resembles a partisan rumble with bull(bleep!) as the primary ammunition being shot back and forth.
    And, if the winner "depends on experience, integrity, and so on," how did we elect a freshman senator with no experience?

    Twice?
    Exactly! Once I can understand, but twice???

    And how did contraception become an election issue in the last election? Contraception? Has that ever been mentioned again since Sandra Fluke first made her appearance on the national stage? You'll have to really dumb down your thinking to guess what the issue might be in the next election but it will be something so simple that the LIV will be able to understand, or at least get a feeling for. Perhaps sexism, agism, food stamps or something equally simple.

    Certainly politicians and the media will try to manipulate the issues in any election but the electorate don't seem to have any idea that they are being used. Is that the fault of the politicians or a rather unsophisticated electorate? I believe it's the latter.

  3. #73
    Student Bethlehem Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Bethlehem, PA
    Last Seen
    03-10-16 @ 09:50 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    294

    Re: Looks like Rick Perry's going to jump on the Presidential candidate bandwagon.

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Thanks for that really sophisticated analysis of US presidential elections. Perhaps you might also factor the information presented below (note the discussion of significant structural shifts in the American electorate that renders your 100 year analysis moot) and get back to us....

    The missing story of the 2014 election - GOPlifer
    Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
    The Democrats have a lock on the White House - MarketWatch


    One of the problems with the Republicans is that most of the candidates the Conservatives like are indeed, what you call, "lunatics" in the board scheme of the political spectrum..



    If she were running for governor of Texas, you would be right. But, she is running for President and most of the electorate, contrary to the Texan myopic world view, are not Texans. It's the Cons that actually have slightly better than no shot.
    ok then just look at the last 24 years. 8 years of clinton, 8 years of bush, 8 years of obama. back and forth.

    i didn't claim it was a complicated analysis, so i don't know what your sarcasm was supposed to add to that post.

    i still don't think that any one side has a "lock" on the white house, despite the "controversial analysis from a Republican analyst" that you cite as proof of something in the market watch article.

    i admit the gop has a lot of fringe candidates, but when it comes down to the general election, just one party vs. the other, the margins of victory in popular vote % have been close. again, not claiming to be a political scientist, but in the last 75 years, only 5 elections have had a double digit margin of victory (4 R, 1 D). electoral college margins have been greater, but both sides have landslide wins by that metric as well in recent history

    additionally, in the last hundred years, voter turnout in presidential elections has hovered between 50-60%. i get the arguments and predictions about shifts in demographics that should favor democrats, but the bottom line (and the data so far seems to support) that it's still more or less a coin flip. for all the new minorities that are coming here that are supposed to favor the D, there are 10,000 people per day retiring that should then in theory favor the R by virtue of the "old, rich, hands off my medicare" crowd.

    even john judis, co author of the "the emerging democratic majority" is walking back that prediction...

  4. #74
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    39,466

    Re: Looks like Rick Perry's going to jump on the Presidential candidate bandwagon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Exactly! Once I can understand, but twice???

    And how did contraception become an election issue in the last election? Contraception? Has that ever been mentioned again since Sandra Fluke first made her appearance on the national stage? You'll have to really dumb down your thinking to guess what the issue might be in the next election but it will be something so simple that the LIV will be able to understand, or at least get a feeling for. Perhaps sexism, agism, food stamps or something equally simple.

    Certainly politicians and the media will try to manipulate the issues in any election but the electorate don't seem to have any idea that they are being used. Is that the fault of the politicians or a rather unsophisticated electorate? I believe it's the latter.
    Could be a little of both.
    I'd forgotten about the great contraception controversy, but that one did get a lot of air time. Next time, who knows? It's unlikely to be anything of substance.
    Its an unbelievably complex subject. Nobody knew health care could be so complicated. Donald Trump



  5. #75
    Sage
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    8,835

    Re: Looks like Rick Perry's going to jump on the Presidential candidate bandwagon.

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    The word I've seen in print is that the RNC debate in August in Ohio will be limited to 12 candidates.
    Maybe another network can have a debate with the other dozen or so candidates .
    The RNC Debate Playoffs: Con Madness. Can we have an office pool?

  6. #76
    Sage
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    8,835

    Re: Looks like Rick Perry's going to jump on the Presidential candidate bandwagon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bethlehem Bill View Post
    ok then just look at the last 24 years. 8 years of clinton, 8 years of bush, 8 years of obama. back and forth.

    i didn't claim it was a complicated analysis, so i don't know what your sarcasm was supposed to add to that post.

    i still don't think that any one side has a "lock" on the white house, despite the "controversial analysis from a Republican analyst" that you cite as proof of something in the market watch article.

    i admit the gop has a lot of fringe candidates, but when it comes down to the general election, just one party vs. the other, the margins of victory in popular vote % have been close. again, not claiming to be a political scientist, but in the last 75 years, only 5 elections have had a double digit margin of victory (4 R, 1 D). electoral college margins have been greater, but both sides have landslide wins by that metric as well in recent history

    additionally, in the last hundred years, voter turnout in presidential elections has hovered between 50-60%. i get the arguments and predictions about shifts in demographics that should favor democrats, but the bottom line (and the data so far seems to support) that it's still more or less a coin flip. for all the new minorities that are coming here that are supposed to favor the D, there are 10,000 people per day retiring that should then in theory favor the R by virtue of the "old, rich, hands off my medicare" crowd.

    even john judis, co author of the "the emerging democratic majority" is walking back that prediction...
    While your 100 year back and forth analysis is interesting, it lacks the sophistication to be relevant. For example, we have firmly entrenched Red states and Blue states, making the idea of a electoral college landslide an interesting phenomena of the PAST. Now, more than ever, past performance is not at all indicative of future results.

    The prevailing winds are stiffly against a Republican presidency. While a Republican presidency is not impossible, it is quite improbable. The Dems start with between 240 and 260 electoral votes and need to win ONE of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado&NH, Georgia, North Carolina or Arizona to prevail while the Reps need to win ALL of them. The party is doing NOTHING to reverse the demographic shifts the are working against them. Furthermore, Arizona, North Carolina and Georgia, all traditionally Red states, are moving toward "at play status". Only WVa, has moved from Blue to "at play".

    If the party goes Conservative (which they might), they have ZERO shot of sweeping the "at play states", which is what they must do (again, they have to sweep... not win a few). It's tough sledding for the GOP.


    That all said, I did finally find a good analysis of the John Jurdis "walk back" (not written by Barone) that was an interesting read and something to ponder (and does offer some hope of the GOP, though I do not believe fully refutes the above)...

    http://eppc.org/publications/submerg...election-2016/
    Last edited by upsideguy; 05-20-15 at 04:31 PM.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •