Gyroscopic Investing

Desert wrote: Scott Walker versus Elizabeth Warren 

I don't really want either one in office (I still want faux Lib Rand Paul), but at least that contest would be interesting, since they're both a bit extreme.  And they aren't tired retreads.  What do you think?

It would definitely be exciting!  Clinton vs Bush not at all.

I don't think Warren could ever make it.  She's another rich multi-millionaire like Romney but speaks with a forked tongue.  Still, I'm glad someone stands up to the greedy bankers.

MachineGhost wrote:

Desert wrote: Scott Walker versus Elizabeth Warren 

I don't really want either one in office (I still want faux Lib Rand Paul), but at least that contest would be interesting, since they're both a bit extreme.  And they aren't tired retreads.  What do you think?

It would definitely be exciting!  Clinton vs Bush not at all.

I don't think Warren could ever make it.  She's another rich multi-millionaire like Romney but speaks with a forked tongue.  Still, I'm glad someone stands up to the greedy bankers.

Walker, Texas Ranger vs. Warren, 0.00000000000001% Indian.  Hmmmmmm. 

... Mountaineer

Joe the Plumber vs the Obamaphone lady.

Simonjester wrote: i don't care who his opponents are, my #1. choice is
Nobody For President
Why vote for Nobody? Because Nobody is the best candidate... Nobody cares.... Nobody will keep election promises..... Nobody will listen to your concerns.... Nobody tells the truth..... Nobody will lower your taxes... Nobody will defend your rights.... Nobody has all the answers....

It seems like every election cycle we see some new and interesting candidates rise up early only to fade into oblivion leaving us with nothing but the old establishment retreads when all is said and done.

The Democrats finally broke out of that mold in 2008 with Barack Obama but I tend to think that was an anomaly caused mostly by something akin to "affirmative action". The Republicans stuck to the script and gave us one of the oldest retreads I can recall in the person of John McCain who sometimes sounded like he was going to vote for Obama himself.

So Bush vs Clinton will not surprise me at all. And that affirmative action thing will still be in play to some extent, probably tilting the election to Hillary. All of this email stuff will be old news by then. She may very well have caused it to come out now herself for that very purpose.

The Clinton and Bush clans will continue to strengthen their "royal family" hold on power in the US. The Obamas will likely do so in 2020 or 2024 when Michelle has a go at the presidency. It's not so different from The Perons in Argentina or The Assads in Syria, except that we still have some checks on power here in the US.

Jay Billington Bulworth vs. Chris Christie?

I like Warren vs Rand Paul.  What an interesting set of debates that would be.

Biden vs. Trump.

But really, let's face it, Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/181988/hilla ... aign=tiles

She has fully double Warren's favorability. And the Clintons have always had an uncanny ability to weather scandals.

I'm not sure that Clinton will make it. The word is that the Obamas are out to get her and that their top advisor, Valerie Jarrett, was the one who leaked the email story to the NY Times. If true, then who knows what other surprises they have in store for her?

Here is an example: What if Hillary signed the separation form obligating her to turn over all government documents before leaving office? This would basically prove that she committed a felony when she withheld all of those emails. What if this signed form was suddenly leaked to the press?

She is very vulnerable.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Hillar ... id/630443/

Reub wrote: I'm not sure that Clinton will make it. The word is that the Obamas are out to get her and that their top advisor, Valerie Jarrett, was the one who leaked the email story to the NY Times. If true, then who knows what other surprises they have in store for her?

If that's true, they're doing a terrible job. This info being leaked now is good for Clinton because the whole scandal will have died down by the time she actually announces her candidacy and starts running. If this stuff came out while she was on the middle of a campaign trail, or a week before the Iowa caucus, it would be much more damaging.

Reub wrote: Here is an example: What if Hillary signed the separation form obligating her to turn over all government documents before leaving office? This would basically prove that she committed a felony when she withheld all of those emails. What if this signed form was suddenly leaked to the press?

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Hillar ... id/630443/

Politicians commit felonies as part of their daily job performance. Sadly nobody cares except those who were already looking for an excuse to confirm their pre-existing distaste for someone.

People don't like to be lied to. If Hillary, who said that she has committed no crime, is proven to be lying this could cost her dearly.

Reub wrote: People don't like to be lied to. If Hillary, who said that she has committed no crime, is proven to be lying this could cost her dearly.

Everything is relative.  If others are appearing to lie just as much, it will only have an affect on overall voter turnout.  So the republicans would have to put someone forward that seemed more honest than Hillary, and doesn't hail from a family that lied us into a war.

Perhaps that last part is an unfair knock on Jeb... but that's what a lot of people see... and who can blame them if he's hanging with the same crew.

Reub wrote: People don't like to be lied to.

Nah.  People don't like to be lied to by people they don't like.  Lying by your own side is generally downplayed, rationalized, or ignored.  In this case, defended.

"Overall, 51% in the poll call Clinton's use of a personal email system rather than a government provided one a very or somewhat serious problem, 48% say it's not too serious an issue or no problem at all. And the public is similarly split over whether Clinton did something wrong by using the personal system; 51% say she did, 47% that she did not."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/16/politics/ ... index.html

Partisan politics makes rational people not only believe stupid things, but also circle the herd around blatantly dishonest people.

Tyler wrote:

Reub wrote: People don't like to be lied to.

Nah.  People don't like to be lied to by people they don't like.  Lying by your own side is generally downplayed, rationalized, or ignored.  In this case, defended.

"Overall, 51% in the poll call Clinton's use of a personal email system rather than a government provided one a very or somewhat serious problem, 48% say it's not too serious an issue or no problem at all. And the public is similarly split over whether Clinton did something wrong by using the personal system; 51% say she did, 47% that she did not."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/16/politics/ ... index.html

Partisan politics makes rational people not only believe stupid things, but also circle the herd around blatantly dishonest people.

This.

madbean wrote: So Bush vs Clinton will not surprise me at all. And that affirmative action thing will still be in play to some extent, probably tilting the election to Hillary. All of this email stuff will be old news by then. She may very well have caused it to come out now herself for that very purpose.

Clinton currently has a 80% probability of winning to Bush's 20%.  It's not even close.

So put on the ball buster early.

Reub wrote: People don't like to be lied to.

Sure they do; it just has to be a lie they already agree with. For the most part, people believe what confirms their existing beliefs, not what's true.

Pointedstick wrote:

Reub wrote: People don't like to be lied to.

Sure they do; it just has to be a lie they already agree with. For the most part, people believe what confirms their existing beliefs, not what's true.

PS, I believe you speak the truth.  Are you lying to me? 

... Mountaineer

MangoMan wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:
Clinton currently has a 80% probability of winning to Bush's 20%.  It's not even close.

So Hillary is the presumptive next POTUS. But if she could not run for whatever reason, and the republican opponent still had no chance, who would you want in her place among the other reasonable possibilities? Certainly not Elizabeth Warren! Is there someone preferable?

Reub? Anyone?

If Hillary doesn't run, I think the Republicans will get the presidency. Besides her, the Democratic field is a wasteland. The Republicans have a lot of up-and-coming candidate-type people, and while none of them are perfect, most of them would wipe the floor with anyone besides Hillary.

Pointedstick wrote:

MangoMan wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:
Clinton currently has a 80% probability of winning to Bush's 20%.  It's not even close.

So Hillary is the presumptive next POTUS. But if she could not run for whatever reason, and the republican opponent still had no chance, who would you want in her place among the other reasonable possibilities? Certainly not Elizabeth Warren! Is there someone preferable?

Reub? Anyone?

If Hillary doesn't run, I think the Republicans will get the presidency. Besides her, the Democratic field is a wasteland. The Republicans have a lot of up-and-coming candidate-type people, and while none of them are perfect, most of them would wipe the floor with anyone besides Hillary.

I can't see many people "wiping the floor" with Elizabeth Warren.  Not that she's great or anything... but she's pretty articulate and speaks with a populist type of mind-set that might be pretty popular.  I agree that for the most part the dems are a wasteland, but I'm curious who you think the "up and comers" are in the republican party... I mean now we even have Rand Paul writing letters to Iran.

PS,

Based on this list,

http://ballotpedia.org/Possible_preside ... ates,_2016

On the republican side, I see a ton of complete boobs, Rand Paul (appealing candidate, though appearing to be a bit of a phony, and republicans make mince-meat of libertarians during primaries), and a New Hampshire Senator I've never heard of.  I'll give a nod to Ben Carson, as well.  Nausiating sometimes... insightful others.  But I don't know if a guy with his background could get elected president.


On the dem side, besides Hillary, you've got a few boobs, some people I have no idea who they are or have never heard them speak, and a few "decent candidates," IMO... and I say that from an electability standpoint:

Elizabeth Warren (articulate populist)
Bernie Sanders (I'm sure I'll get some $hit for this... I'm basically putting him here cuz I like him.. which I already said I wouldn't do)
Amy Klobuchar (not typical presidential material, but pretty honest as far as politicians go... pretty typical liberal but has an "honest personality")
Jim Webb (not exactly Slick Willy, but he's got that "blue dog" quality that could serve him very well in the general election)

Are they great candidates?  No... but better than most of those republican ones, as far as actually getting elected.

As for the ones I don't know much about, perhaps they're all complete boobs.



EDIT:

Perhaps I'm being to hard on Scott Walker and I missed Brian Sandoval, who I don't know in the least.  I personally don't like Walker, but that's just part of my distaste for your standard conservative candidate that hugs the 2nd Amendment while sh!tting on the 4th.  He might very well do ok, but I wouldn't call him an "up-and-comer."  Just another conservative.

I'm starting to think a Bernie vs Dr Carson general election could be damn interesting.

Oh, and the last and unfortunately most important thing, unless we have another recession before fall of 2016, the dems are going to have a much stronger narrative.  The minor swings happen back and forth in the off-years, but when it comes to the presidential elections, whatever the economy has done in the months/years preceding the election relative to where things were at before will drive home.

And by the "economy," I mean employment numbers, which have been improving since 2012.

So republicans are going to have the same up-hill battle that dems did in 1988, after the president oversaw an economy go from a very rough spot to significantly improved.


And I guess the thing for me is... what the hell is the appeal of Hillary Clinton?  As an "independent," she's one of my least favorite dem candidates.  If she is a shoe-in, how the hell is any one of those other candidates not.  If they are going to lose, why are we so sure Hillary will win?

TennPaGa wrote:

moda0306 wrote: And I guess the thing for me is... what the hell is the appeal of Hillary Clinton?  As an "independent," she's one of my least favorite dem candidates.

+1

I think it has to be the "first woman president" thing.  Since she is the "first best hope" of potential female presidents, she probably gets the tribalist support of those who would simply like to see a woman president (mainly women themselves, I would have to think).  Unlike blacks, women don't go almost all in on democrats every election, so there are a lot of politically moderate women whose tribalist hamsters are going to be running like banshees when they get a chance to vote the first woman into office.  And I realize there is a decent "competence" argument they will have... Yes, Hillary is smart.  But so is Dick Cheney.

I know this sounds sexist.  I want to be clear that this affect is not unique to women, IMO.  Its affect is wide-spread, and it occurs whenever you let your emotional pangs about a candidate trump logical and political consistency, and good policy ideas... which is pretty much all the time.  If some one is "one of us," ("us" being a subjective term describing any cultural group), regardless of whether they tell the truth or have good arguments for their policy preferences, they're going to get support of "us."

I'm not immune to this, as I really like Senator Amy Klobuchar, but I don't know why... I think it's just cuz she comes off as the quintessential Minnesotan... and I sorta like that, dontcha know!

Libertarian666 wrote: I think Hillary is a horrible candidate for drawing independents. Rand Paul would wipe the floor with her not only in debates but on policy issues for independents. This is true with anyone who isn't a "blue dog Democrat" or whatever the people who always vote Democrat are called, since she is a neo-con with no appeal to anyone interested in ending the drug war OR ending the overseas intervention disasters that the US keeps getting involved in.

Hillary is an Opportunist before she has any other labeled applied.  But, she is a product of the woman's liberation movement, so she's also a Democrat, naturally.  Beyond that, it's all about pandering to get enough voter support.

If all politics is local, than all politics is emotional.

But is all politics chromosomal?

Joe Manchin vs. Rand Paul

... Mountaineer