• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Suppose the best Democrat and best Republican POTUS candidates are out..?

If neither Clinton nor Christie are candidates for POTUS in '16, which party wins?

  • The Democrats will win

    Votes: 20 83.3%

  • The Republicans will win

    Votes: 2 8.3%

  • A third party candidate will win

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • By 2016 President Obama will have successfully destroyed America. There will be no election.

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • Total voters
    24
Smeagol

Smeagol

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A couple of years ago we were thinking 2016 would be Chris Christie vs. Hillary. However, today its looks at least plausible both Clinton and Christie might not be candidates.

My question is if both Clinton and Christie are out, which party has the best chance at winning the White House in 2016? I know, this poll isn't going to be anywhere near accurate has party loyalists tend to throw honesty out the window with questions like this and instead use the opportunity to make their side look strongest for partisan reasons but I thought I's at least ask and see what supporting comments would be offered....all with a grain of salt, of course.
 
Smeagol said:
A couple of years ago we were thinking 2016 would be Chris Christie vs. Hillary. However, today its looks at least plausible both Clinton and Christie might not be candidates.

My question is if both Clinton and Christie are out, which party has the best chance at winning the White House in 2016? I know, this poll isn't going to be anywhere near accurate has party loyalists tend to throw honesty out the window with questions like this and instead use the opportunity to make their side look strongest for partisan reasons but I thought I's at least ask and see what supporting comments would be offered....all with a grain of salt, of course.
Click to expand...

It was plausible both would be out 2 years ago. It is still plausible, but still highly unlikely. Both will most likely run.

Edit: electorally, democrats have an edge no matter who runs, so with both out it still favors democrats.
 
Smeagol said:
A couple of years ago we were thinking 2016 would be Chris Christie vs. Hillary. However, today its looks at least plausible both Clinton and Christie might not be candidates.

My question is if both Clinton and Christie are out, which party has the best chance at winning the White House in 2016? I know, this poll isn't going to be anywhere near accurate has party loyalists tend to throw honesty out the window with questions like this and instead use the opportunity to make their side look strongest for partisan reasons but I thought I's at least ask and see what supporting comments would be offered....all with a grain of salt, of course.
Click to expand...

Will it be the Tweedledeeblicans, or the Tweedledumocrats in '16? Interesting question. The Tweedledeeblicans had the best candidate last time around, and yet, still lost due to inept campaigning. If both candidates are equally bad, I'd bet on the Democrats. They have the best campaigners, can raise a lot of money, and potentially the most voters if they can activate their base.

Not that it really matters, but it is kind of interesting, much like speculating on the outcome of the Superbowl.
 
For the last two presidential elections, the "top candidate (eventual nominee)" for both parties has been someone I either had to hold my nose to vote for, or couldn't bring myself to vote for at all.

Christie vs. Clinton would be more of the same, so I damn well HOPE that neither is the candidate for their respective parties.
 
The democrats have demographic trends going for them. I could be wrong but I don't see the GOP winning the White House for a long time, regardless of the candidate. Hispanics are probably going to tip the scales in favor of the Democrats for a generation as the GOP has made it clear they see them as a problem. Texas should be a swing state possibly as soon at 2016 while Florida will go solidly blue. Puerto Rico will gain statehood at some point soon as a blue state. Then add women voters, most of whom are trending democrat and the GOP senior citizen vote that sadly one day will not be with us and to me the question is will the democrats get arrorgant and ram through unpopular policies just because they'll control the White House and both houses of congress. If they do, that could be the best hope the GOP might have at any significant influence the Washington in future years.
 
The dems will because the downhill slide has already gained momentum.
Smeagol said:
A couple of years ago we were thinking 2016 would be Chris Christie vs. Hillary. However, today its looks at least plausible both Clinton and Christie might not be candidates.

My question is if both Clinton and Christie are out, which party has the best chance at winning the White House in 2016? I know, this poll isn't going to be anywhere near accurate has party loyalists tend to throw honesty out the window with questions like this and instead use the opportunity to make their side look strongest for partisan reasons but I thought I's at least ask and see what supporting comments would be offered....all with a grain of salt, of course.
Click to expand...
 
sneakosview said:
The dems will because the downhill slide has already gained momentum.
Click to expand...
If anything, democrats might get elected because people either don't see or won't deal with the horrifying amounts of BS nearly all politicians spout constantly.
But democrats are better at making it "don't see".
 
The demographics and changing American values make it almost impossible for Republicans to win the White House. Maybe Congress. Not the White House.

I despised Ron Paul and he would have gotten slaughtered, but Republicans tactically should play a wild card and run Rand Paul. If they pick from the list of other Republicans now they will lose again, but again in the 46 to 47% respectable lose range. Rand Paul is so "different" it is hard to calculate.
 
Redress said:
electorally, democrats have an edge no matter who runs, so with both out it still favors democrats.
Click to expand...

Balderdash!! Electorally independents are currently breaking Republican due to a slow economic recovery coupled with uncertainty and resentment over Obamacare.

In 2016 two things are most certainly to occur in the Presidential election.

1) African Americans will not vote in the same numbers they did in the last two elections
2) Evangelical Christians who sat out due to a issues with a "Mormon" candidate will be back to vote.

If the economy is still weak, the Repubs will even pick up more Hispanic votes than last time. That is if they don't trip all over their feet over immigration.

As usual , the democratic play-book will be focused on the war on women, the war on minorities, the war on the elderly and the war on immigrants, and not about jobs or the economy.


Republicans have a pretty good chance again.
 
Del Zeppnile said:
Balderdash!! Electorally independents are currently breaking Republican due to a slow economic recovery coupled with uncertainty and resentment over Obamacare.

In 2016 two things are most certainly to occur in the Presidential election.

1) African Americans will not vote in the same numbers they did in the last two elections
2) Evangelical Christians who sat out due to a issues with a "Mormon" candidate will be back to vote.

If the economy is still weak, the Repubs will even pick up more Hispanic votes than last time. That is if they don't trip all over their feet over immigration.

As usual , the democratic play-book will be focused on the war on women, the war on minorities, the war on the elderly and the war on immigrants, and not about jobs or the economy.


Republicans have a pretty good chance again.
Click to expand...

Do you know the difference between the Electoral College and demographics? Might want to look those two terms up, then get back to me.

Also note that all of your claims are based on unfounded claims. I can back up the electoral map, how many safe states for each side, and add up the electoral votes. However, being lazy, I will just steal a post made earlier today by some one who is really smart on elections(I strongly recommend reading his blog posts).

Perotista said:
I do not think so. I think whomever the Democratic nominee is, he/she will be starting out with a huge electoral college advantage. Trust worth blue states add up to 258 electoral votes with only 270 needed to win. The Republicans have on 186 electoral votes in trust worthy states. Of course this all depends on whom is the nominees. A Schweitzer run would place MT 3 EV into the Democratic column leaving them only 9 short of victory with the toss up states listed as Fl, NC, VA, OH, NH, IA and NV.

This sort of built in advantage is what made Christie so desirable for the GOP before bridgegate, he would have switched NJ 14 EV into the GOP column and probably made the states of PA, CT, DE into the toss up column dropping the Democratic trust worthy states down to 214 vs. Christies's 200. Christie before bridgegate basically made the race an even one. I see as of today, no other candidate that has the power to do that for the GOP.
Click to expand...

The fact is, there simply are more electoral votes in reasonably solid blue states than reasonably solid red states. My point is solid, yours, not so much.
 
The Mark said:
If anything, democrats might get elected because people either don't see or won't deal with the horrifying amounts of BS nearly all politicians spout constantly.
But democrats are better at making it "don't see".
Click to expand...

I think one of the Republicans biggest PR nightmares with a few exceptions isn't politicians, its pundits and the culture they foster at the grass roots level. Voters don't just listen to what the politicians say in deciding how to vote. They also consider what the pundits say and observe the culture of the political team of the candidate.

Secondly, I think corporate America who are essentially the voters' employers hurt the chances of the GOP winning back the White House. The GOP is perceived by most average voters as the party of rich; the same constituency that wants to downsize their jobs, cut benefits, reduce compensation while increasing work and outsource to India while giving themselves bigger compensation packages and bonuses. Meanwhile the democrats have positioned as being the party that represents the economic interests of typical Americans.
 
Redress said:
Do you know the difference between the Electoral College and demographics? Might want to look those two terms up, then get back to me.

Also note that all of your claims are based on unfounded claims. I can back up the electoral map, how many safe states for each side, and add up the electoral votes. However, being lazy, I will just steal a post made earlier today by some one who is really smart on elections(I strongly recommend reading his blog posts).



The fact is, there simply are more electoral votes in reasonably solid blue states than reasonably solid red states. My point is solid, yours, not so much.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are talking about here. My point is the huge advantage in trust worthy or as you put it, solid blue states. Christie prior to bridgegate could have changed that advantage, NJ's 14 taken from the Democratic column and placed into the Republican, probably PA, CT and DE (30 EV) from the solid Democratic column into the toss up column. After bridgegate or as of now, Christie is not in play and neither are the changes I just stated. PA, CT, DE and NJ (44 EV) remain solid blue/trustworthy Democratic without him.

Hence my statement of it being good political strategy on the Democrats part to tear Christie down as much as they can with bridgegate. If you think what I said is wrong, no problem. It is just opinions anyway. But it seems to me we said or are saying the same thing. The Democrats no matter who they run start off with around a 70 vote EV advantage regardless of who they run. Only Christie of the ones mentioned on the Republicans could have shrunk that advantage to approximately even, that is before bridgegate. Not now.

Personally at this time I do not see how any Republican can over come the current huge EV advantage the Democrats have. But one never knows what events, what issues will be hot, two and one half years from now. Political situations and advantages are very dynamic. They change over time. But the Republican Party is on the down slide and if not for the ACA, would becoming pretty irrelevant, even in this years election.
 
Del Zeppnile said:
Balderdash!! Electorally independents are currently breaking Republican due to a slow economic recovery coupled with uncertainty and resentment over Obamacare.

In 2016 two things are most certainly to occur in the Presidential election.

1) African Americans will not vote in the same numbers they did in the last two elections
2) Evangelical Christians who sat out due to a issues with a "Mormon" candidate will be back to vote.

If the economy is still weak, the Repubs will even pick up more Hispanic votes than last time. That is if they don't trip all over their feet over immigration.

As usual , the democratic play-book will be focused on the war on women, the war on minorities, the war on the elderly and the war on immigrants, and not about jobs or the economy.


Republicans have a pretty good chance again.
Click to expand...
2) Evangelical Christians who sat out due to a issues with a "Mormon" candidate will be back to vote
Click to expand...
Unless they run Romney once again, just to make sure they can beat a dead horse once more.
While it may not happen in 2016, here is to hoping for a viable 3rd party. I am so darn tired of having to choose between bad and worse.
 
Republicans will nominate someone who is favored by the power elite. He will be physically unattractive, dogmatic and be a centrist while claiming to be a fiscal and social conservative. If elected his style of governance will be slightly better than Obama, his justice department will be a thousand times better than Obama's and he will bring adults in to run the State Department.

My guess, Huckabee, who I can't stand.

Democrats will nominate a leftist who parrots much of what Obama is currently saying. He or she will be more attractive than the Republican because Democrats believe in tabloid governance. He or she will say that Obamacare is wonderful but that healthcare is so complicated the bill itself needs to be repaired so lets all dig in and make the darn thing better. He or she will bring the same kind of incompetance to the State Department and Justice that we currently have. He or she will believe that social justice trumps the laws of economics. He or she will believe that debt isn't important as long as it a certain percentage of GDP but will enact the same kind of programs that expand the welfare state and drag GDP down.

My guess, RuPaul.
 
I have to go with a Dem, because the GOP can't help themselves offending people. It's like a disease.... And yes, because X said something stupid/evil it should reflect on your party if you do not kick them out. Silent consent. I know, novel idea... Holding something a group does not say or do against them.

It's amazing the freaking by law changes they made to stifle speech in their own party and toss Paul under the bus. If you can do that, you can kick idjits that offend people.
 
Smeagol said:
If neither Clinton nor Christie are candidates for POTUS in '16, which party wins?
Click to expand...
I think it's way to early to speculate.
 
Smeagol said:
The democrats have demographic trends going for them. I could be wrong but I don't see the GOP winning the White House for a long time, regardless of the candidate. Hispanics are probably going to tip the scales in favor of the Democrats for a generation as the GOP has made it clear they see them as a problem. Texas should be a swing state possibly as soon at 2016 while Florida will go solidly blue. Puerto Rico will gain statehood at some point soon as a blue state. Then add women voters, most of whom are trending democrat and the GOP senior citizen vote that sadly one day will not be with us and to me the question is will the democrats get arrorgant and ram through unpopular policies just because they'll control the White House and both houses of congress. If they do, that could be the best hope the GOP might have at any significant influence the Washington in future years.
Click to expand...

Smeagol, you are spot on!:)
 
Del Zeppnile said:
Balderdash!! Electorally independents are currently breaking Republican due to a slow economic recovery coupled with uncertainty and resentment over Obamacare.

In 2016 two things are most certainly to occur in the Presidential election.

1) African Americans will not vote in the same numbers they did in the last two elections
2) Evangelical Christians who sat out due to a issues with a "Mormon" candidate will be back to vote.

If the economy is still weak, the Repubs will even pick up more Hispanic votes than last time. That is if they don't trip all over their feet over immigration.

As usual , the democratic play-book will be focused on the war on women, the war on minorities, the war on the elderly and the war on immigrants, and not about jobs or the economy.


Republicans have a pretty good chance again.
Click to expand...

I do not agree that African-Americans won't vote in the numbers they have in the last two elections. What makes you think that?
 
Perotista said:
I am not sure what you are talking about here. My point is the huge advantage in trust worthy or as you put it, solid blue states. Christie prior to bridgegate could have changed that advantage, NJ's 14 taken from the Democratic column and placed into the Republican, probably PA, CT and DE (30 EV) from the solid Democratic column into the toss up column. After bridgegate or as of now, Christie is not in play and neither are the changes I just stated. PA, CT, DE and NJ (44 EV) remain solid blue/trustworthy Democratic without him.

Hence my statement of it being good political strategy on the Democrats part to tear Christie down as much as they can with bridgegate. If you think what I said is wrong, no problem. It is just opinions anyway. But it seems to me we said or are saying the same thing. The Democrats no matter who they run start off with around a 70 vote EV advantage regardless of who they run. Only Christie of the ones mentioned on the Republicans could have shrunk that advantage to approximately even, that is before bridgegate. Not now.

Personally at this time I do not see how any Republican can over come the current huge EV advantage the Democrats have. But one never knows what events, what issues will be hot, two and one half years from now. Political situations and advantages are very dynamic. They change over time. But the Republican Party is on the down slide and if not for the ACA, would becoming pretty irrelevant, even in this years election.
Click to expand...

I was referring to your post since it made the point better than I could. I was not debating your post, which was as usual excellent.
 
Original Intent said:
I have to go with a Dem, because the GOP can't help themselves offending people. It's like a disease.... And yes, because X said something stupid/evil it should reflect on your party if you do not kick them out. Silent consent. I know, novel idea... Holding something a group does not say or do against them.

It's amazing the freaking by law changes they made to stifle speech in their own party and toss Paul under the bus. If you can do that, you can kick idjits that offend people.
Click to expand...

Google dog whistles politics. There's some very interesting thought out there that suggests that the offensive stuff is actually true heartfelt positions but most of the time they're smart enough to not be open and transparent about it. To help accomodate this its suggested that they've come up with coded terminology they can use to motivate get out the vote efforts to their more etreme supporters while being able to avoid criticism and writing off anybody who calls them out on it as nuts.

For example, part of the unfortunate history of American has been racsim toward blacks and even today some voters still might harbor racist attitudes. Part of that rascism was to deny recocnizing black men as men and instead call them "boys." An example of a dog whistle would be in a Presidential debate, refering to everone as "Mr. (LASTNAME)" but if there's a black candidate or moderator, he and only he is reffered to by his first name. Racists in the TV audience then get a veiled message to vote for the candiadte who calls black men by the first names. Just one example. In fairness, I do not personally think candidates who do this are themselves racist but rather are simply trying to get as many votes as possible, essentially using voters' own bigotry against them. It does however speak to the culture of the political party that has the support of people who identify with tactics like this being used.
 
Redress said:
Do you know the difference between the Electoral College and demographics? Might want to look those two terms up, then get back to me.
Click to expand...

LOL! Yeah, and you are aware that people cast these things called "votes" for candidates, right? If maps decided the elections why would there even be a day to vote? And when the people (part of those demographic maps), especially independent voters 'break' one way or the other, that changes the model. Or when a third party candidate comes along, that too skews that map as well. And then of course there is always a margin of people who just may not vote for the candidate from the party they are registered with. Many, many variables that occur state by state and district by district that may keep a candidate in play. Like in 2004 when George W. Bush took a higher percentage of Hispanic votes than the model showed.

I don't have crystal ball and neither do you. But when it comes to Hispanic voters they are more interested in jobs and education than they are in immigration issues--- they are here for opportunity. So with that being said, and as I alluded to in my earlier post, the economy in 2016 may have more to do with the outcome than any red and blue map you are looking at in 2014. That is how it may work. To quote Clinton's adviser James Carvill, "it's the economy stupid!"

Redress said:
Also note that all of your claims are based on unfounded claims. I can back up the electoral map, how many safe states for each side, and add up the electoral votes. However, being lazy, I will just steal a post made earlier today by some one who is really smart on elections(I strongly recommend reading his blog posts).
Click to expand...

I was not aware that the results of the 2016 election are already a "founded claim".
 
Lovebug said:
Unless they run Romney once again, just to make sure they can beat a dead horse once more.
While it may not happen in 2016, here is to hoping for a viable 3rd party. I am so darn tired of having to choose between bad and worse.
Click to expand...

Romney was a horrible choice unless the logic was to field a New England pro-abortion, pro-government healthcare liberal in an attempt to fool old Florida voters in Broward county.
 
Redress said:
I was referring to your post since it made the point better than I could. I was not debating your post, which was as usual excellent.
Click to expand...

Always glad to oblige. Sometimes I do not know a compliment when it hits me in the face.
 
Amanda1858 said:
I do not agree that African-Americans won't vote in the numbers they have in the last two elections. What makes you think that?
Click to expand...

When you look at who actually shows up to vote on election day and not who is registered to vote, the numbers are always less than the actual potential. Older voters are the most reliable, while younger voters are the most fickle.

In the last two presidential elections African-American votes (13% of the population) saw the largest rise in democratic vote margins since 1968 and we know the reason why. Without that reason, nobody believes those margins for African-Americans will be there. If Hillary runs the women's vote will not play the same way as the Black vote did. Women will not vote in the same percentages for Hillary as Blacks voted for Obama. If Hillary could get that much mileage from the women's vote, Obama would have never beaten her for the nomination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom