Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 147

Thread: Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicts another Dem in the White House. Do you Agree?

  1. #111
    Student francois60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Coral Springs, FL
    Last Seen
    02-12-15 @ 03:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    251

    Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicts another Dem in the White House. Do you Agree?

    Quote Originally Posted by Comunitee View Post
    Obama IS a centrist President. Only flakes like Ted Cruz think he's a flaming liberal.
    By that standard, we've never had a right-wing President either. Obama, like Reagan, is as ideological as he can get away with. Bill Clinton was actually a centrist. Obama is a liberal who is stymied by a nation that is not liberal.


    Newsflash: We have a nation of over 300 million people. A big nation requires big government with big spending. You want to live with "smaller government"? Move to Somalia.
    Spending is proportional. The US government historically has spent about 19% of GDP and should remain at that percentage or a little lower. Under Obama, spending rose, at least until Republicans started curtailing it so that it should return to the historical average in a couple more years.


    If Obama were the "solid left-winger" you want people to believe he is, he would have socialized the energy industry, the banking industry, the insurance industry and Walmart, confiscated their profits -- and thus balanced the budget. (Well, maybe cut the deficit in half.)
    He's as left wing as he can get away with, again. He was so left wing that he and his party were historically rejected in 2010 for their actions. The only reason he's still in the White House today is because he managed to make the election about personalities instead of ideology.

    Ginsburg is right though, Democrats right now have an advantage in general elections, Republicans have an advantage in midterms or special elections. That's because the Democratic base is big enough now to just make turning them out important, and Obama relied on a base-turning strategy, accepting that he'd lose independents. It worked. It won't work so well in 2014, which should accelerate his lame duck status.

  2. #112
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,961
    Blog Entries
    25

    Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicts another Dem in the White House. Do you Agree?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike.Redd View Post
    In an interview with The Washington Post, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the oldest Supreme Court Justice and also one of the most liberal, said that she predicts another Democrat in the White House.

    From The Washington Post:


    Do you agree with her? or is she just a crazy old bat?

    Source: Rare.us | Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicts another Dem in the White House.
    I would say yes with the caveat that a lot depends on what major events occur between now and 2016. I will say this, electoral politics/map plays right into the Democratic hands. Take the Six most populace states of CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, the democrats own 4 of them with 124 electoral votes, the republicans, only TX 38 and Florida is a toss up that leans Democratic. But we won't count FL yet. Then the Democrats own the Northeast with the possible exception of NH, which is a toss up. So in those states I mentioned to include all the northeast the Dems are starting out with a 183-38 advantage with Florida and NH being toss ups.

    Okay, the south is republican, but you can't add VA or NC, VA went to Obama the last years and NC was won by romney by a thin 100,000 votes or so, Let's leave those two states as toss ups and only count the south. The EV is now 183 to 118. Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan will go Dem, Indiana probably Republican and we can leave Ohio as a toss up. Total now is 219 to 129. 270 is needed to win.

    Out west along with CA, OR, WA and Hawaii are strongly Democratic, make that total 242-129. The plain and rocky mountain states, Iowa is goes Democratic most of the time, Colorado and NM also, I would say in 2016 they will follow that trend, what about NV, lets leave NV as a toss up and then put the rest of the plains and mountain states in the GOP column. You now have 262 D 191 R with 270 to win. Now remember the toss up states, NH, VA, NC, OH, FL, NV. Whomever the GOP nominee is would have to win all of them with the exception of NH. I would say that it is high odds against it.

    But the above scenero is generic Republican vs. generic Democrat. A charismatic candidate, a candidate that is as atractive to Indies as republicans could change the above and limit what is now a Democratic Electoral advantage. Once names are added, generic goes out the window or it doesn't depending on the name.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  3. #113
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,356

    Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicts another Dem in the White House. Do you Agree?

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    I would say yes with the caveat that a lot depends on what major events occur between now and 2016. I will say this, electoral politics/map plays right into the Democratic hands. Take the Six most populace states of CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, the democrats own 4 of them with 124 electoral votes, the republicans, only TX 38 and Florida is a toss up that leans Democratic. But we won't count FL yet. Then the Democrats own the Northeast with the possible exception of NH, which is a toss up. So in those states I mentioned to include all the northeast the Dems are starting out with a 183-38 advantage with Florida and NH being toss ups.

    Okay, the south is republican, but you can't add VA or NC, VA went to Obama the last years and NC was won by romney by a thin 100,000 votes or so, Let's leave those two states as toss ups and only count the south. The EV is now 183 to 118. Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan will go Dem, Indiana probably Republican and we can leave Ohio as a toss up. Total now is 219 to 129. 270 is needed to win.

    Out west along with CA, OR, WA and Hawaii are strongly Democratic, make that total 242-129. The plain and rocky mountain states, Iowa is goes Democratic most of the time, Colorado and NM also, I would say in 2016 they will follow that trend, what about NV, lets leave NV as a toss up and then put the rest of the plains and mountain states in the GOP column. You now have 262 D 191 R with 270 to win. Now remember the toss up states, NH, VA, NC, OH, FL, NV. Whomever the GOP nominee is would have to win all of them with the exception of NH. I would say that it is high odds against it.

    But the above scenero is generic Republican vs. generic Democrat. A charismatic candidate, a candidate that is as atractive to Indies as republicans could change the above and limit what is now a Democratic Electoral advantage. Once names are added, generic goes out the window or it doesn't depending on the name.
    Greetings, Pero.

    I'm very interested in the 2014 elections, for two reasons. 1) It could show us what the Independents really think about the direction the country is headed in, and 2) it could be a snapshot of what 2016 might bring...depending on the candidates for POTUS. Tricky stuff here, since we're so divided. :

  4. #114
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,961
    Blog Entries
    25

    Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicts another Dem in the White House. Do you Agree?

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    Greetings, Pero.

    I'm very interested in the 2014 elections, for two reasons. 1) It could show us what the Independents really think about the direction the country is headed in, and 2) it could be a snapshot of what 2016 might bring...depending on the candidates for POTUS. Tricky stuff here, since we're so divided. :
    2014 won't tell us a thing about 2016 just like 2010 didn't tell us anything about 2012. It all depends on whom the candidates are, what type of major events take place, how people feel about the direction of the country and more important, their own pocket book. What issues are hot usually plays a lot into it also. Fiscal and defense if hot issues usually play in the republicans favor, social issues and justice into the Democrats.

    the problem or more accurately, the question is where do independents go or whom do they vote for? When Reagan too office only 26% of the electorate identified themselves as independents, 70% identified or affiliated themselves with the two major parties. 33 years later, the numbers are 45% say they are independents, up 19 points and 53% now identify or affiliate themselves with the two major parties. A drop of 17 points.

    I have no doubt the majority of independents are feed up with both parties. But where do they go, whom do they vote for in an election? 95% and higher of indies will vote for one of the two major party candidates, a candidate they consider the lesser of two evils or the least worst candidate. They are not voting for any of the candidate, only against the or what they consider the most evil or the worst candidate. I like to use last years Missouri Senate race as an example, 60% of Missourians did want McCaskill, but 69% of Missourians didn't want Aiken. McCaskill won and she won not because the majority of Missourians wanted her, she won because she was perceived as not as bad as Aiken.

    I expect a lot more than usual more independents to stay home next year and not vote at all. To they the system is messed up, the choices suck, whom do you vote for when you do not want a Republican or Democrat but really aren't given that choice? Republicans and Democrats have really screwed up this country, then they write the election laws to make sure no viable third party ever challenges them so they can continue to screw up the country even more. This is one reason I think the House will remain Republican and the senate democratic next year, those people, independents which cause sea change elections will remain in their houses next year and not bother to go to the polls. Why should they, nothing ever changes.

    Now that might with a charismatic independent wealthy candidate who decides to run in 2016 as a third party candidate. One who makes sense, perhaps in the Perot mode. He came twenty years too early. By that I mean only 39% of the electorate was willing to vote for a third party candidate back then. Today that number is up to 81%. Only it has to be the right candidate. That candidate has to have money to get his message out and to challenge the election laws to get him on the ballot. Corporations and the like will give hundreds of millions of dollars to the Republicans and democrats and not a cent to any third party. so money is also a big issue when it comes to challenging the two major parties. Corporations do not want to have to add a third party to their giving, that cost them more and they too will work in tandem with the two major parties to ensure no viable third party rises.

    Sorry about rambling, but you got me in one of my moods.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  5. #115
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,356

    Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicts another Dem in the White House. Do you Agree?

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    2014 won't tell us a thing about 2016 just like 2010 didn't tell us anything about 2012. It all depends on whom the candidates are, what type of major events take place, how people feel about the direction of the country and more important, their own pocket book. What issues are hot usually plays a lot into it also. Fiscal and defense if hot issues usually play in the republicans favor, social issues and justice into the Democrats.

    the problem or more accurately, the question is where do independents go or whom do they vote for? When Reagan too office only 26% of the electorate identified themselves as independents, 70% identified or affiliated themselves with the two major parties. 33 years later, the numbers are 45% say they are independents, up 19 points and 53% now identify or affiliate themselves with the two major parties. A drop of 17 points.

    I have no doubt the majority of independents are feed up with both parties. But where do they go, whom do they vote for in an election? 95% and higher of indies will vote for one of the two major party candidates, a candidate they consider the lesser of two evils or the least worst candidate. They are not voting for any of the candidate, only against the or what they consider the most evil or the worst candidate. I like to use last years Missouri Senate race as an example, 60% of Missourians did want McCaskill, but 69% of Missourians didn't want Aiken. McCaskill won and she won not because the majority of Missourians wanted her, she won because she was perceived as not as bad as Aiken.

    I expect a lot more than usual more independents to stay home next year and not vote at all. To they the system is messed up, the choices suck, whom do you vote for when you do not want a Republican or Democrat but really aren't given that choice? Republicans and Democrats have really screwed up this country, then they write the election laws to make sure no viable third party ever challenges them so they can continue to screw up the country even more. This is one reason I think the House will remain Republican and the senate democratic next year, those people, independents which cause sea change elections will remain in their houses next year and not bother to go to the polls. Why should they, nothing ever changes.

    Now that might with a charismatic independent wealthy candidate who decides to run in 2016 as a third party candidate. One who makes sense, perhaps in the Perot mode. He came twenty years too early. By that I mean only 39% of the electorate was willing to vote for a third party candidate back then. Today that number is up to 81%. Only it has to be the right candidate. That candidate has to have money to get his message out and to challenge the election laws to get him on the ballot. Corporations and the like will give hundreds of millions of dollars to the Republicans and democrats and not a cent to any third party. so money is also a big issue when it comes to challenging the two major parties. Corporations do not want to have to add a third party to their giving, that cost them more and they too will work in tandem with the two major parties to ensure no viable third party rises.

    Sorry about rambling, but you got me in one of my moods.
    Pero, I voted for Ross Perot, because he made sense! Unfortunately for us, his message for our future, though accurate, was not enough to change the way things are done by the two major parties. So here we are! I agree with your saying, "a pox on both parties!"

    Greetings.

  6. #116
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,961
    Blog Entries
    25

    Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicts another Dem in the White House. Do you Agree?

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    Pero, I voted for Ross Perot, because he made sense! Unfortunately for us, his message for our future, though accurate, was not enough to change the way things are done by the two major parties. So here we are! I agree with your saying, "a pox on both parties!"

    Greetings.
    i am one of a few that put his actions where his talk is. I have voted third party in 5 out of the last 6 presidential election. My McCain vote being the only one for a major party candidate. One can talk all they want about the pox on both house and all that is is talk. Until the voters start voting for someone else besides Republicans and Democrats, all their talk is nothing but hot air and the two major parties know that. The two major parties will continue to dupe them into their votes. people will never learn.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  7. #117
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,356

    Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicts another Dem in the White House. Do you Agree?

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    i am one of a few that put his actions where his talk is. I have voted third party in 5 out of the last 6 presidential election. My McCain vote being the only one for a major party candidate. One can talk all they want about the pox on both house and all that is is talk. Until the voters start voting for someone else besides Republicans and Democrats, all their talk is nothing but hot air and the two major parties know that. The two major parties will continue to dupe them into their votes. people will never learn.
    Is it just 1) laziness, or 2) party loyalty, or 3) maybe we really are as stupid as they figure we are? I just hate to pick Door 3, Pero! To use an analogy, I guess everyone likes their crook---it's the others that are the problem!

  8. #118
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,961
    Blog Entries
    25

    Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicts another Dem in the White House. Do you Agree?

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    Is it just 1) laziness, or 2) party loyalty, or 3) maybe we really are as stupid as they figure we are? I just hate to pick Door 3, Pero! To use an analogy, I guess everyone likes their crook---it's the others that are the problem!
    Slogans, talking points, the word of the day, rhetoric without substance and out right lies decide elections. Not substance or even stances on issues, I mean real stances and not some made up stance. Maybe people are really happy with the direction of the country and the people and parties leading it, only they like to bitc... about it. Maybe they don't care and just go through the motions of caring and voting, after all it is expected of them.

    Perhaps people are followers and sheep that like to be lead around by the nose by those political elites in Washington. I don't know. But I do know nothing will change and it will be business as usual until someone or some other party challenges the two major parties. Sure Perot lost, but both parties adopted a lot of his ideas, his agenda and in the year 2000 we probably came as close to a balanced budget, where spending matches revenues that we will ever come. Perot scared the two major parties to death and since then they have tighten up their election laws to ensure no third party becomes viable. They, the two major parties even threw the League of Woman's voters out of running the presidential debates. After all, the League had the gull to let Perot participate in them. Talk about one corrupt system and it is this system we are trying to force on the rest of the world. Give me a break.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  9. #119
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicts another Dem in the White House. Do you Agree?

    It's way too early to make that kind of prediction. The election isn't for 3 more years, a lot can happen in that time. And we don't even know who's running.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  10. #120
    Professor

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,907

    Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicts another Dem in the White House. Do you Agree?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Irrelevant digression.

    One should not have a "systematic governing philosophy that has one goal in mind, that is protecting the freedom of the individual".

    One should have a governing philosophy that in dynamic balance protects both the freedom and the security of the individual and society.

    The centrist position does not slide either to the left or the right.

    The centrist position is simply that: centrist, in that it strives to create a dynamic balance between freedom and security, between liberty and justice those create respectively.

    Thus the centrist position can never be to the left (economic security over economic freedom and social freedom over economic security) or to the right (economic freedom over econonmic security and social security over social freedom) as otherwise the slid position itself, then favoring either freedom or security over the other with respect to economic or social issues, would no longer be centrist.
    What I was trying to pin down is how (or where on the spectrum) your view of the center is defined. You gave me some Idea with your post, and the tip off for me is your use of the word "Dynamic", or ever changing, yet you curiously deny the the centrist position has moved to the left. It has. Secondly, I do appreciate the sentiment of trying to be a problem solver from the pragmatic middle however, as history has shown, people adjust to laws. The immoral will game the system and take advantage of others, necessitating more laws ad infinitum. The best approach for federal government is to protect freedom and allow people to become expert problem solvers for themselves and their local communities via local governments and charity. The reason I used the phrase "systematic philosophy" is because free individuals subsist in the notion of security and justice, this is always appropriate.

Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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